Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Mahaffey v. MS Dept Wildlife, 02-60563 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 02-60563 Visitors: 20
Filed: Jan. 24, 2003
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 02-60563 Summary Calendar JO ANN MAHAFFEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES and PARKS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi l:00-CV-503-D-A January 23, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mahaffey appeals the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment of her Title VII sex discrimination a
More
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit No. 02-60563 Summary Calendar JO ANN MAHAFFEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, VERSUS MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE, FISHERIES and PARKS, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi l:00-CV-503-D-A January 23, 2003 Before DAVIS, WIENER and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Mahaffey appeals the district court’s dismissal on summary judgment of her Title VII sex discrimination action against the Mississippi Department of Wildlife. The only significant issue on appeal is whether the district court erred in finding that Mahaffey * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. failed to produce summary judgment evidence from which a jury could infer that defendant’s stated reasons(superior qualifications)for hiring the male applicant instead of her was a pretext for discrimination. Our review of the record persuades us that the district court correctly concluded that Mahaffey failed to produce evidence from which a jury could infer that the defendant’s reason for hiring the male applicant instead of Mahaffey was a pretext for gender discrimination. Essentially for the reasons assigned by the district court in its careful June 20, 2002 opinion, we affirm its judgment. AFFIRMED. 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer