Court Opinion

ID: 2962862
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:02:54.690433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:09:43.029386
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          September 27, 1994                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                 ____________________        No. 94-1058                                 RICHARD F. WILLIAMS,                                Plaintiff, Appellant,                                          v.                 BELL LABORATORIES, A/K/A AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,                                 Defendant, Appellee.                                 ____________________                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]                                              ___________________                                 ____________________                                        Before                                 Selya, Cyr and Stahl,                                   Circuit Judges.                                   ______________                                 ____________________            Richard F. Williams on brief pro se.            ___________________            David J. Kerman,  David T. Lyons  and Ropes  & Gray  on brief  for            _______________   ______________      _____________        appellee.                                 ____________________                                 ____________________                                       Per  Curiam.     Plaintiff brought  a pro  se civil                      ___________                           ___  __            action   alleging  wrongful  termination   of  employment  in            violation  of  the  Age  Discrimination  in  Employment   Act            ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.    621-634 (1988).  After some discovery,            defendant  moved  for  summary  judgment,  arguing  that  (1)            plaintiff had not been  the defendant's "employee" within the            meaning  of  the  law,   but  rendered  services  through  an            independent  contractor,  and  (2)  defendant's  decision  to            terminate plaintiff's services was based on  legitimate, non-            discriminatory reasons.   The district  court granted summary            judgment on the ground that even if plaintiff could establish            a  prima facie case of  age discrimination, he  had failed to            offer  minimally  sufficient   proof  that  the   defendant's            articulated non-discriminatory reason was a pretext, and that            the real reason for  terminating plaintiff's services was age            discrimination.     The   court  thus   did  not   reach  the            definitional issue.                      Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, we agree with the                                              __  ____            district court's  analysis and  affirm substantially for  the            reasons set forth  in Judge McAuliffe's thorough order.   See                                                                      ___            Woods  v.  Friction Materials,  Inc.,  1994  U.S. App.  LEXIS            _____      _________________________            19755,  at *9-14 (1st Cir.  July 29, 1994);  LeBlanc v. Great                                                         _______    _____            Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 843 (1st Cir.  1993), cert. denied,            ____________                                    ____________            114 S. Ct.  1398 (1994).  We do not  consider the new factual            contentions raised for the first time in plaintiff's brief on            appeal.                        Affirmed.                      ________                                         -3-