February 16, 1996\      [Not for Publication]
                                [Not for Publication]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