2004 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
5-17-2004 

# P onc zek v . P ep si B ottlin g Gr p 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 . 03-2105

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : 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_2004

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 at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at 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 2004 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at 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 at 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 at ion
" P oncz e k v

. P e psi Bottl in g Gr p " (2004). 2004 D e cisio n s . P ape r 701. 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_2004/7011 NOT PRE CEDENT IAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE TH IRD CIR CU IT
No. 03-2105
FREDE RIC K W. P ONCZEK, Appellant v. PEP SI BOTTL ING GR OUP

____________ APPEAL FROM THE UNI TED STATES DIST RICT COURT FO R T HE WE STE RN DIST RIC T O F PE NN SY LV AN IA

(D.C. C iv. No. 02-c v-0007 5J ) Distri ct Judge: Honorable Donett a W. Ambrose

____________ Submitte d Under Third Circ uit L. A.R. 34.1( a)

May 11, 2004 Be for e: N YG AA RD , M cK EE , and W EIS , Circu it Judges
.

(Fil ed: May 17, 2004)
OPI NION

W EIS , Circuit

Judge
. Plaintiff was 58 y ears of age when he appl ied for e mployment with the defendant company

in Januar

y 2001. Twenty employ ees were sel ected fr om the group of2

applic ants at

that time, i ncluding s ix who were 40 year s of age or ol der. Pl ainti ff all eges that h e w as n ot h ired as a resu lt of a ge d iscrim inati on.

In accordance with the defendant’ s hiring process, plaintiff complet ed an applic ation and passed a wri tten t est. He was then inte rviewed by two management personnelwho questioned hi m on such matter s as rel evant work exper ience, problem solvi ng, le arning new ta sks, and whether he coul d engage in continuous l ifting of 40-50 pounds. The i ntervi ewer rate d plaintiff’s responses as “low,” a fail ing grade. After exhausting his administ rati ve remedies , pla inti ff fil ed suit in the United Stat es District Court for the West ern District of Pennsy lvania , al leging t hat defend ant v iolat ed th e A ge D iscrim inati on i n E mp loym ent A ct, 29 U.S .C. § 621 , et seq. The Distric t Cou rt emp loyed the fam iliar burd en-sh ifting p roced ure o utlined in McD onnell Dougla s Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 ( 1973), and conc luded that defendant had arti culat ed a legi timat e non-dis criminatory reason for

fail ing to hi re plaintiff

and that plaintiff then fail ed to show pret ext. Accordingly , the court ent ered summary judgment for d efen dant. On appeal, pl ainti ff contends t hat the Distri ct Court improperly resol ved a mate rial issue of co ntrov erted fact by fa iling to v iew th e fac ts in the lig ht mo st favo rable to the non- moving party . He reli es on the af fidavi t of his 22-y ear-ol d son Jason, who applie d at the sam e time and w ho w as hire d. W e obs erve, h ow ever, th at the a ffida vit establish es no thing o ther tha n the fact tha t a young er indiv idual, ca pable of co ntinuo usly3

lifting product s weighing 40- 50 pounds from an asse mbly l ine duri ng a working day , was a good candidat e for employ ment. I n contras t, pl ainti ff was dubious during his i ntervi ew as to whether he could engage in continuous lifting of 40-50 pounds.

The Distri ct Court di d not err in concl uding that

the pla inti ff’s evi dence fail ed to dis credit

the defendant ’s proffe red reas ons for fai ling t o hire hi m. We have reviewed the Distr ict Court ’s thorough opinion and, essent ially for the rea sons st ated there, conclude t

hat the summary j udgment must be affirmed.