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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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

discrimination, alleging

company's

she was

downsizing plan

were pregnant at the

overlapped

by

department.

former

for

pregnancy

targeted for layoff

because both

she and

month,

Reingold filed

under the

her supervisor

time and their pregnancy leaves

approximately one

Lawner

employer,

would have

crippling their

a summary

small

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

After

examining the

established by

(1973),

and

and make it leaner

case

in light

of

and more competitive.

the analytic

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

________________________

its progeny,

the

district

framework

Green, 411 U.S.

_____

court granted

792

summary

judgment.

case of

The court found that Luongo established a prima facie

sex discrimination,

that Lawner Reingold

legitimate,

non-discriminatory

that Luongo

then failed to

rational fact finder to

reason

Unhappy

for

her

with the

reason for

articulated a

the job

action, and

introduce sufficient evidence

for a

conclude that the employer's articulated

discharge

district

was a

pretext

for

court's decision,

discrimination.

Luongo filed

the

present appeal.

We review the summary judgment

novo "to

determine whether the

to interrogatories, and

affidavits .

. . show[s]

ruling in this case

de

pleadings, depositions, answers

admissions on file,

there is

-2-

together with

no genuine issue

as to

the

any

material fact and [that] the moving party is entitled to judgment

as a matter of

1995).

law."

We examine

Simon v.
_____

FDIC, 48 F.3d 53, 56

____

the evidence in the

(1st Cir.

light most favorable to

plaintiff-appellant to determine whether there is a genuine issue

of

material

V lez-G mez
___________

Cir. 1993).

fact which

would warrant

trial on

the merits.

v. SMA Life Assurance Co., 8 F.3d 873, 874-75 (1st

________________________

"genuine"

issue is

one

that properly

can

be

resolved only by a

resolved in

favor of either

that might affect

law.

The

the

party.

outcome of

reasonably be

A "material"

the suit under

issue is one

the governing

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986).

________
____________________

nonmovant may

summary

that

finder of fact because it may

is

judgment

defeat a

properly supported

by relying upon

less than

Rather, the

to rebut

not

nonmovant

the motion.

significantly

mere allegations or

probative.

Id.
___

motion for

evidence

at 249-50.

must present definite, competent evidence

Libertad
________

v. Welch, 53 F.3d
_____

428, 435 (1st

Cir. 1995).

We agree with the district

introduce

conclude

sufficient

evidence for

that the employer's

court that Luongo failed to

rational

fact finder

to

asserted non-discriminatory reason

for her discharge was a pretext for discrimination.

Stratus
Computer, Inc.,
_________________________

(explaining employee's

articulates

40

F.3d

11,

16

(1st

burden on summary judgment

legitimate,

non-discriminatory

decision).

-3-

See Smith v.
_____

Cir.

1994)

once employer

reason

for

its

Therefore, after close perscrutation

the

of the briefs and

record, we affirm on substantially the grounds stated in the

district court's opinion.

Affirmed.
________

-4-