Court Opinion

ID: 2963776
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:15:04.268437+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:46.361861
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          November 22, 1995     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

          No. 95-1341

                                  STEPHANIE LUONGO,

                                Plaintiff - Appellant,

                                          v.

                           LAWNER REINGOLD BRITTON, ET AL.,

                               Defendants - Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                       [Hon. Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                           ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                               Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                          ___________

                                Lynch, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            and Casellas,* District Judge.
                                           ______________

                                _____________________

               Stephanie H. Luongo, with whom Howard M. Fine and Donna Zils
               ___________________            ______________     __________
          Banfield were on brief for appellant.
          ________
               Thomas P. Billings, with whom Sally & Fitch was on brief for
               __________________            _____________
          appellees.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                              
          ____________________

          *  Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.

                    Per  Curiam.   Stephanie  Luongo  sued Lawner  Reingold
                    ___________

          Britton   &  Partners,   her  former   employer,  for   pregnancy

          discrimination, alleging  she was  targeted for layoff  under the

          company's  downsizing plan  because both  she and  her supervisor

          were pregnant at the  time and their pregnancy leaves  would have

          overlapped  by  approximately one  month,  crippling their  small

          department.   Lawner  Reingold filed  a summary  judgment motion,

          properly supported by several affidavits, arguing that the reason

          Luongo was laid off was not discriminatory, but merely part  of a

          third wave of dismissals designed to lower the operating costs of

          the advertising agency  and make it leaner  and more competitive.

          After  examining the  case  in light  of  the analytic  framework

          established by  McDonnell Douglas  Corp. v.  Green, 411 U.S.  792
                          ________________________     _____

          (1973),  and  its progeny,  the  district  court granted  summary

          judgment.   The court found that Luongo established a prima facie

          case of  sex discrimination,  that Lawner Reingold  articulated a

          legitimate,  non-discriminatory  reason for  the job  action, and

          that Luongo  then failed to  introduce sufficient evidence  for a

          rational fact finder to  conclude that the employer's articulated

          reason  for  her  discharge  was a  pretext  for  discrimination.

          Unhappy  with the  district  court's decision,  Luongo filed  the

          present appeal.

                    We review the summary judgment  ruling in this case  de

          novo "to  determine whether the   pleadings, depositions, answers

          to interrogatories, and  admissions on file,   together with  the

          affidavits .  . . show[s]  there is  no genuine issue  as to  any

                                         -2-

          material fact and [that] the moving party is entitled to judgment

          as a matter of   law."  Simon v.  FDIC, 48 F.3d 53, 56  (1st Cir.
                                  _____     ____

          1995).   We examine  the evidence in the  light most favorable to

          plaintiff-appellant to determine whether there is a genuine issue

          of  material  fact which  would warrant  a  trial on  the merits.

          V lez-G mez  v. SMA Life  Assurance  Co., 8 F.3d 873, 874-75 (1st
          ___________     ________________________

          Cir. 1993).   A  "genuine"  issue is  one  that properly  can  be

          resolved only by a   finder of fact because it may  reasonably be

          resolved in  favor of either   party.  A "material"  issue is one

          that might affect  the  outcome of  the suit under  the governing

          law.  Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,  Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).
                ________    ____________________

          The  nonmovant may  not  defeat a  properly supported  motion for

          summary  judgment  by relying upon  mere allegations or  evidence

          that  is  less than   significantly  probative.   Id.  at 249-50.
                                                            ___

          Rather, the  nonmovant  must present definite, competent evidence

          to rebut  the motion.  Libertad  v. Welch, 53 F.3d  428, 435 (1st
                                 ________     _____

          Cir. 1995).  

                    We agree with the district  court that Luongo failed to

          introduce  sufficient  evidence for  a  rational  fact finder  to

          conclude  that the employer's  asserted non-discriminatory reason

          for her discharge was a pretext for discrimination.  See Smith v.
                                                                   _____

          Stratus   Computer,  Inc.,  40  F.3d   11,  16  (1st  Cir.  1994)
          _________________________

          (explaining employee's  burden on summary judgment  once employer

          articulates  a  legitimate,  non-discriminatory  reason  for  its

          decision).

                                         -3-

                    Therefore, after close perscrutation  of the briefs and

          the  record, we affirm on substantially the grounds stated in the

          district court's opinion. 

                    Affirmed.
                    ________

                                         -4-