2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 8-19-2009 

# D e ni se P r o c t or v

. AR MDS I nc P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : N on-P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-4144

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min . C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it a t ion
" D e ni s e P r oct or v

. AR MD S I nc " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 803. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/803The Honor able Ala n D. L ourie, F eder al Circuit J udg e, sitting by desig nation. *

1 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E T H IRD C IR C U IT

_________ No. 07-4144

_________ DENI SE PR OCTOR; TYREA AL EXAND ER

v. ARMD S I

NC , Appellee DENI SE PR OC TO R, Appellant

___________________ Appea l from the United States District Court for the D istrict of NewJ erse y No. 04-c v-00899 (District Judge: The Honora ble Peter G . Sheridan)

___________________ Submit ted Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

Fe bruar y 5, 2009 Be fore : McKEE, JORDAN, an d LO U R IE Circuit Judges .

* (F iled August 19, 2009)2 OPI NI ONOF TH E CO UR T McKe e, Circuit J udg e, Denise Proc tor appe als the district court’ s g rant of summar y judgme nt in favor of

the defe ndant, ARMDS, Inc., in this employ ment discrimination claim based on r acia l discrimination that Proctor brought under Title VI Iof the Civil Ri ghts Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e, et seq . F or the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e wi ll a ff

ir m. I . Inasmuch a s we a

re writing pr imarily

for the pa

rties who ar e fa

miliar with this case, we ne e d n ot r e c ite the fa c tua l or pr oc e dura l hi sto ry . O ur

re vie w o f t

he g ra nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt i s plenar y . Kaucher v. County of Buc ks , 4 55 F .3 d 4 18 , 4 22 (3 d Ci r. 20 06 ). Summary jud g me nt i s appropr iate “if

the pleading s, depositions, answers to interr og atories, a nd admissions on file, toge ther with the a ffidavits, if any , show that there is no ge nuine issue as to any materia l fac t and that the moving pa

rty is entitled to a judgme nt as a matter of law.” Fe d. R. Civ. P . 56 (c) . To raise a “g enuine” issue of fa ct, the re cord must contain e vidence “such that a re asonable jury could re turn a ve rdict for

the nonmoving pa

rty .” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, I nc. , 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). Proctor alleg es that there is a g enuine issue of materia l fac t reg ardingwhether she rec eived the sa

me quality

and amount of tra ining a s simil arly situated employees outside of her protec ted class. How ever , there is no evidence that any simil arly situated employee r ece ived better tra ining. In her de position, P roctor me ntioned two employees who may have attended a3

meetingthat Proctor believe d that she should also have attended. ( App. 126-27). H oweve r, Proctor wa s unsure of the job positi ons of these e mploy ees, a nd she could not say

whether they a c tu a l l y att e n d e d

th e m e e t i n gi nqu e s t i o n . “ T h e c e n tr a l f o c u s . . . i na

c a s e s u c ha s th i s i s a l w ays whether the employer is tre ating‘some people less favor ably than others be cause of their r ace , color, re ligion, sex, or national orig in.’” Fu rn c o Co ns t. C or p. v . W ate rs , 438 U.S. 567, 577 (1 9 7 8 ) ( qu o t i n g Teamsters v. United States , 4 31 U. S. 3 24 , 3 35 n. 15 (1 97 7) ). “ I f a pla int if f f a ils to show the exist ence of a similarly situated employee, summar y judgme nt is appropriate wher e no other e vidence of discrimination is present.” Holifield v. Reno , 1 15 F .3 d 1 55 5, 15 62 (1 1th Cir. 1997). Her e, Proctor’ s conclusory alleg ations, unsupported by any evidenc e that she rec eived less r igor ous trainingthan those who we re similarly situated, fail to ra ise a g enuine issue of mater ial fac t. Although w e note that Proc tor mentions a ra cially charg ed incident involvinganother employ ee a

nd ref ere nce to a

“chimpanzee ,” she doe s not attempt to establish the ex istence of a hostile work environme nt, and that theory of re cover

y is not included under the “ Statement of Th e I ssu e Pr e se nte d f

or Re vie w” in h e r b ri e f. Ac c or din g ly , Pr oc tor ’s fa ilure to s ho w that a white employee r ece ived more f avora ble treatment or training , or that such a n employ ee r ece ived tr a i n i n gth ats h e w a s d e n i e d , i s f at a l t o h e r c l a i mo f r a c i a l d i s c r i m i n at i o nun d e r T i t l e V II. Proctor also a

rgues that summary

judgme nt was improper

beca use there are g enuine issues of mater ial fac t as to whether , duringher initial job interview, she told the interviewe r that she had e x perie nce w ith Medicaid, Medica re, Socia l Security

and Charity

Care pr og rams. Ac c or din gto P ro c tor , s he me re ly sa id t hat sh e wa s “ kn ow le dg e a ble ” wi th r e g ard

to t he pr ogra ms, meaningthat she knewof their e x istence, a nd the interview er took this to mean that she ha d4

experience she did not actua lly have w orkingwith such programs. This ar gument misses the point, however . In order

to make out a pr im a fa c iec a se of dis pa ra te tr e atme nt, the pla int if

f m us t show, amongother thing s, “that [s] he applied a nd was qua lified for a

job for which the employ er was see king a

pplicants.” McD onnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 4 1 1 U . S. 7 9 2 , 8 0 2 ( 1 9 7 3 ) . We have he ld that “[o] bjective job qualific ations should be considere d in evaluatinga plaintiff’ s pr im a fa c iecase .” Goosby v . Johnson &Johnson Me dical, Inc. , 228 F.3d 313, 320 ( 3d Cir. 2000). Her e, Proctor a dmits t hat she did not have the re quisite job ex perie nce a ctually working with Medicaid, Medic are , Social Security and Charity

Care pr og rams. The ref

ore, Proc tor did not meet the objec tive qualifications for the job in question, and she fa iled to make out a pr im a fa c ie case . Summary

judgme nt was there fore appropr iate. See , Nar in v . Lo we r M e rio n S c ho ol D ist. , 20 6 F .3 d 3 23 , 3 32 (3 d Ci r. 20 00 ) ( a ff ir min gsumma

ry jud g me nt whe re pla int if

f d id n ot p os se ss require d teac hing c ertifica tes and thus could not establish prima fa cie c laim). We will therefor e aff irm the district court’s grant of summar y judgme nt. I I . For all of the a

bove re asons, we w ill affirm the orde r of the district c ourt g ranting summary judgme nt to the plaintiff.