Beth Boardman v. United Parcel Service General, No. 10-2084 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2084 BETH BOARDMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE GENERAL SERVICES COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee, and UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge. (1:09-cv-00962-JFM) Submitted: November 30, 2011 Decided: December 6, 2011 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diane MacArthur Brown, OLSEN & BROWN, LLC, Niwot, Colorado, for Appellant. Emmett F. McGee, Jr., Paul A. Mallos, JACKSON LEWIS LLP, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Beth Boardman sued her former employer, United Parcel Service General Services Company ( UPSGSC ), alleging that she was terminated because of her gender and age in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination granted summary in Employment judgment for Act. UPSGSC. The For district the court reasons that follow, we affirm. We review the district court s order granting summary judgment de novo, drawing reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Henson Group, Inc., 61 F.3d 270, 275 (4th Cir. 1995). is required to enter summary judgment v. Liggett A district court if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The question to be resolved in ruling on a motion for summary judgment is whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented. Anderson v. could not Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). The district court found that Boardman establish a prima facie case of gender or age discrimination because she failed to show that she was meeting the legitimate 2 expectations of her employer, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973), and that even if Boardman could have established a prima facie case, she failed to show that the employer s reasons for terminating her were pretextual. Reeves v. Sanderson, 530 U.S. 133, 151-52 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Boardman v. United Parcel Serv. Gen. Servs. Co., No. 1:09-cv-00962-JFM (D. Md. Aug. 31, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
