* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

for the Fifth Circuit

_____________________________________

No. 98-10015

Summary Calendar

_____________________________________

MARETA R. CARPENTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

BT OFFICE PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL, INC.

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

Dallas Division

(3:96-CV-2355-P)

______________________________________________________ July 16, 1998

Before KING, HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Mareta R. Carpenter (“Carpenter”) challenges the

district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendant

employer, BT Office Products International, Inc. (“BT”), in

Appellant's employment d iscrimination case brought under the Age

Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-34.

The issue on appeal narrows to whether the district court correctly2

determined on summary judgment that the employer's true reason for

d ischarging Ms. Carpenter was her substandard job performance.

After carefully reviewing the re cord, we are persuaded that Ms.

Carpenter failed to raise an issue of fact from which a fact finder

could infer that the employer’s stated reason for disch arge was

pretextual.

Carpenter’s evaluation marks were the lowest in her group.

Carpenter was not replaced by BT. Her work was allocated to other

Customer Service Representatives (“CSRs”). This fact supports BT’s

contention that it was down sizing and moving toward a more

efficient operation rather than getting rid of older employees.

Carpenter argues that a review prep ared by Callahan, one of

her prior supervisors, supports her claim that she was a competent

employee and that BT’s proffered reas ons for firing her were

pretextual. We disagree. As the summary judgment record

indicates, even though this review reflected that Ms. Carpenter’s

performance was average to above a verage in every category,

Carpenter still ranked the lowest among the CSRs in her group.

Furthermore, Callahan’s review of Carpenter also pointed out areas

that needed improvement. Two months later these issues were noted

as not having improved by the BT Customer Service Training Manager.

Miller, the supervisor at the time of Carpenter’s termination,

experienced problems with Carpenter similar to those Callahan

documented. Miller also counseled Carpenter for her failure to

handling incoming calls in accordance with company policy. Miller3

further counseled Carpenter on her below average line production.

Even though Carpenter later increased her line output the following

month, one good month does not establish an employee’s work

history. Carpenter failed to produce competent summary judgment

sufficient to permit a fact finder to concl ude that Appellee

terminated Ms. Carpenter for her age or for some reason other than

her substandard work performance.

For these reasons, we conclude that the district court

correctly granted summary judgment for BT. The judgment of the

district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.