September 27, 1994
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
No. 94-1058
RICHARD F. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
BELL LABORATORIES, A/K/A AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
Richard F. Williams on brief pro se.
David J. Kerman, David T. Lyons and Ropes & Gray on brief for
appellee.
Per Curiam. Plaintiff brought a pro se civil
action alleging wrongful termination of employment in
violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. 621-634 (1988). After some discovery,
defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that (1)
plaintiff had not been the defendant's "employee" within the
meaning of the law, but rendered services through an
independent contractor, and (2) defendant's decision to
terminate plaintiff's services was based on legitimate, non-
discriminatory reasons. The district court granted summary
judgment on the ground that even if plaintiff could establish
a prima facie case of age discrimination, he had failed to
offer minimally sufficient proof that the defendant's
articulated non-discriminatory reason was a pretext, and that
the real reason for terminating plaintiff's services was age
discrimination. The court thus did not reach the
definitional issue.
Reviewing the dismissal de novo, we agree with the
district court's analysis and affirm substantially for the
reasons set forth in Judge McAuliffe's thorough order. See
Woods v. Friction Materials, Inc., 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS
19755, at *9-14 (1st Cir. July 29, 1994); LeBlanc v. Great
Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 843 (1st Cir. 1993), cert. denied,
114 S. Ct. 1398 (1994). We do not consider the new factual
contentions raised for the first time in plaintiff's brief on
appeal.
Affirmed.
-3-