Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

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[Not for Publication]


[Not for Publication]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.


______________________________________

brief for appellant.


Peter O. Hughes,
________________

Patrick M. Stanton,
___________________

Stanton, Hughes, Dian


______________________

Zucker, P.C., Karen L. Carlotto, Keith E. Wexelblatt, and Choate, H


____________ _________________ ___________________
_________

& Stewart on brief for appellee.


_________

____________________

____________________

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff-appellants John Staffier and

Per Curiam.
__________

Pamela Staffier

granting

appeal

from the

summary judgment

("Sandoz").

John

discrimination on

district court's

for Sandoz

Staffier

account of

sued

decision

Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Sandoz

for

age and/or handicap

employment

under the

Massachusetts employment discrimination statute, Mass. Gen L.

ch. 151B, and

L. ch.

94.

the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen.

Pamela Staffier sued for loss of consortium.

appeal, Staffier

pursues only the

On

employment discrimination

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

The facts and

the

1995.

district court's

the applicable law are set

Memorandum

and Order

forth in

dated June

19,

Staffier v. Sandoz Pharmaceuticals Corp., 888 F. Supp.


________
____________________________

287 (D. Mass. 1995).

briefs

and

the

We have carefully reviewed the parties'

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,

that would allow

qualified

for the

Staffier failed

an inference

two

to

present facts

that he applied

sales positions

he

for and

claims to

wanted.

Those positions were filled before he was

cleared

to return to work.

that the

medical clearance

because

Sandoz subsequently

was

have

medically

Staffier argues for an inference

requirement was a

mere pretext,

waived the requirement

-22

with no

further information than

were open.

We find it

infer

(1)

that

clearance for

for

the

Sandoz

it had

at the

unreasonable to ask

did

not

really

a job applicant who had

previous

nine

time the

years, and

eventually to grant clearance

positions

a factfinder to

require

medical

been totally disabled

(2)

Sandoz's

decision

without the additional medical

data it initially sought indicates that the medical clearance

requirement was a sham.

We

arguments

have

considered

and they are without

reasonable

inferences

discrimination

to be

judgment record, and

all

merit.

of

Staffier's

There

drawn from

the facts

other

simply are no

intentional

employment

in the

summary

Staffier's unsupported allegations

insufficient to make out his case.

further, we

of

affirm the summary


______

are

There being no need to go

judgment for

Sandoz on

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

the

-33

Potrebbero piacerti anche