Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
No. 95-2154
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
____________________
Before
____________________
Richard T. Tucker
__________________
Patrick M. Stanton,
___________________
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam.
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
employment
under the
L. ch.
94.
appeal, Staffier
On
employment discrimination
the
1995.
district court's
Memorandum
and Order
forth in
dated June
19,
briefs
and
the
record
on
appeal.
The
district
court
In
particular,
qualified
for the
Staffier failed
an inference
two
to
present facts
that he applied
sales positions
he
for and
claims to
wanted.
cleared
to return to work.
that the
medical clearance
because
Sandoz subsequently
was
have
medically
requirement was a
mere pretext,
-22
with no
were open.
We find it
infer
(1)
that
clearance for
for
the
Sandoz
it had
at the
unreasonable to ask
did
not
really
previous
nine
time the
years, and
positions
a factfinder to
require
medical
(2)
Sandoz's
decision
We
arguments
have
considered
reasonable
inferences
discrimination
to be
all
merit.
of
Staffier's
There
drawn from
the facts
other
simply are no
intentional
employment
in the
summary
further, we
of
are
judgment for
Sandoz on
the
-33