Court Opinion

ID: 2964281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:23:09.036939+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:01:59.388760
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1011

                                  LORRAINE L. SMITH,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                            COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS,
                       MASSACHUSETTS REHABILITATION COMMISSION,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                     [Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Cyr, and Boudin,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Lorraine L. Smith on brief pro se.
            _________________
            Scott  Harshbarger,   Attorney  General,  and  Dorothy   Anderson,
            __________________                             __________________
        Assistant Attorney General, on brief for appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                   August 23, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.   Plaintiff Lorraine  L. Smith  appeals
                      __________

            pro se  from a summary judgment in favor of her employer, the
            ___ __

            Massachusetts  Rehabilitation  Commission.     Smith  alleged

            discrimination  on the basis of  gender in the  denial of her

            application  for a  promotion to  one or  both of  two newly-

            created supervisory positions.  

                      Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, and after careful
                                              __  ____

            consideration of  the parties' arguments on  appeal, we agree

            with  the district court's  analysis and affirm substantially

            for the reasons set forth in its thorough memorandum opinion.

                      The  judgment  is  affirmed.   See  Loc.  R.  27.1.
                                         ________    ___

            Appellant's motion for reconsideration  of the order  denying

            her motion to "admit new evidence on appeal" is denied.
                                                            ______

                                         -2-