Court Opinion

ID: 2963947
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:17:51.564157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:48.460284
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

        February 16, 1996\      [Not for Publication]
                                [Not for Publication]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit
                                For the First Circuit
                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2154

                          JOHN STAFFIER AND PAMELA STAFFIER,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                            SANDOZ PHARMACEUTICALS CORP.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                   [Hon. Nathaniel M. Gorton, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Cyr, Boudin and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard  T. Tucker  and Weinstein,  Bernstein &  Burwick, P.C.  on
            __________________      ______________________________________
        brief for appellant.
            Peter  O. Hughes,  Patrick  M. Stanton,  Stanton, Hughes,  Diana &
            ________________   ___________________   _________________________
        Zucker, P.C., Karen L. Carlotto, Keith E. Wexelblatt, and Choate, Hall
        ____________  _________________  ___________________      ____________
        & Stewart on brief for appellee.
        _________

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                      Per Curiam.  Plaintiff-appellants John Staffier and
                      Per Curiam.
                      __________

            Pamela Staffier  appeal  from the  district court's  decision

            granting  summary judgment  for Sandoz  Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

            ("Sandoz").     John  Staffier  sued  Sandoz  for  employment

            discrimination on  account of  age and/or handicap  under the

            Massachusetts employment discrimination statute, Mass. Gen L.

            ch. 151B, and  the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen.

            L. ch.  94.  Pamela Staffier sued for loss of consortium.  On

            appeal, Staffier  pursues only the  employment discrimination

            claim under Mass. Gen. L. ch. 151B.

                      The facts and  the applicable law are set  forth in

            the  district court's  Memorandum  and Order  dated June  19,

            1995.  Staffier v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 888 F. Supp.
                   ________    ____________________________

            287 (D. Mass. 1995).  We have carefully reviewed the parties'

            briefs  and  the  record  on  appeal.    The  district  court

            correctly determined that Staffier failed to present evidence

            that, viewed most favorably  to Staffier, establishes a prima

            facie case of discrimination.

                      In  particular,  Staffier failed  to  present facts

            that would allow  an inference  that he applied  for and  was

            qualified  for the  two  sales positions  he  claims to  have

            wanted.  Those positions were filled before he was  medically

            cleared  to return to work.  Staffier argues for an inference

            that the  medical clearance  requirement was a  mere pretext,

            because  Sandoz subsequently  waived the requirement  with no

                                         -2-
                                          2

            further information than  it had  at the  time the  positions

            were open.   We find it  unreasonable to ask  a factfinder to

            infer  that  (1)  Sandoz   did  not  really  require  medical

            clearance for  a job applicant who had  been totally disabled

            for  the  previous  nine  years, and  (2)  Sandoz's  decision

            eventually to grant clearance  without the additional medical

            data it initially sought indicates that the medical clearance

            requirement was a sham.  

                      We   have  considered   all  of   Staffier's  other

            arguments  and they are without  merit.  There  simply are no

            reasonable     inferences    of     intentional    employment

            discrimination  to be  drawn from  the facts  in the  summary

            judgment record, and  Staffier's unsupported allegations  are

            insufficient to make out his case.  There being no need to go

            further, we  affirm the summary  judgment for  Sandoz on  the
                         ______

            basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion.

                                         -3-
                                          3