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November 22, 1995 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-
