2006 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

12-6-2006

Moorer v. Verizon Comm

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 05-5171

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2006 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"Moorer v. Verizon Comm" (2006). 2006 Decisions. Paper 127.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2006/127
1

NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

 

No. 05-5171 

 

GWENDOLYN E. MOORER,

Appellant

vs.

VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,

Appellee

____________

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

(D.C. Civ. No. 03-cv-01265) 

District Judge: Honorable Joy F. Conti 

____________

Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)

October 26, 2006

Before: SMITH, WEIS and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges.

Filed: December 6, 2006

____________

OPINION 

 
1

 As the District Court noted, Verizon Communications is improperly

identified as defendant in this matter. Defendant was employed by Verizon Services

Corporation. 

2

WEIS, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff is an African-American female who was forty-nine years of age at

the time of her discharge from defendant Verizon Services Corporation.1

 She brought a

claim alleging unlawful discrimination on the basis of sex and race in violation of Title

VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000 et seq., and on the basis of age in

violation of 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. The District Court granted summary judgment for

defendant. 

The District Court ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case

of race or sex discrimination under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792

(1973) because she did not demonstrate that similarly situated individuals who were not

members of the protected class were treated more favorably than she was treated. It also

held that she failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination under the

McDonnell Douglas framework because she failed to prove that she was replaced by a

sufficiently younger person to create an inference of discrimination.

 The District Court further found that, even if she had established a prima

facie case of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or age, defendant would still prevail

under McDonnell Douglas because plaintiff could not show that the defendant’s

legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating her employment were pretext. 
3

Specifically, plaintiff did not produce adequate evidence to contradict the defendant’s

assertion that she had failed to meet her sales quota. 

We have scrutinized the record in this case, particularly the comprehensive

opinion of the District Court. We are persuaded that there was no reversible error in the

entry of summary judgment. Plaintiff failed to establish a disputed issue of material fact.

Accordingly, the Judgment of the District Court will be affirmed.