IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-11325
(Summary Calendar)
RONALD M. HILLS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
(4:97-CV-931-P)
--------------------
May 31, 2000
Before POLITZ, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendant-Appellant Ronald M. Hills appeals the district
court’s summary judgment dismissal of his age discrimination and
retaliation suit filed pursuant to the Age Discrimination and
Employment Act (ADEA). See 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. Hills argues
that the record establishes the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact regarding whether Defendant-Appellee Lockheed Martin
impermissibly discriminated against him when it did not promote him
to eight managerial positions for which he applied. Specifically,
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
he claims that the following material facts demonstrate a genuine
issue: (1) He received favorable job reviews; (2) he was more
qualified for several of the positions than the individuals who
were hired; (3) statements made by Wayne Killough, from the
Resources and Services Department, and by Ruth Phillips, Hills’s
immediate supervisor, demonstrate retaliation; (4) David Kelley,
one of the hiring supervisors, had heard through the “rumor mill”
that Hills had filed a discrimination complaint with the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC); and (5) Hills was singled
out and disciplined for alleged violations of Lockheed Martin’s
smoking rules.
Hills has failed to establish a prima facie case of age
discrimination for several of the disputed positions. See Bennett
v. Total Minatome Corp., 138 F.3d 1053, 1060 (5th Cir. 1998). Two
of the positions were filled by individuals older than Hills. One
of the positions was not filled at all because of a lack of project
funding. A fourth position was filled prior to being posted and
thus before Hills submitted an application. Of the remaining
positions, Lockheed Martin presented evidence that the individuals
chosen were more qualified than Hills. When asserting that he was
more qualified than the individuals chosen, Hills relied on
generalized statements about the relative qualifications of the job
candidates, which is insufficient to establish age discrimination.
See Nichols v. Loral Vought Systems Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 42 (5th Cir.
1996).
2
Hills has also failed to establish a case of retaliation
against Lockheed Martin for his filing of a 1993 EEOC complaint.
In his deposition, Hills conceded that he had no reason to believe
that any of the hiring supervisors retaliated against him when they
did not promote him. He further stated that, other than the fact
that he applied for the positions, he had no reason to believe that
Lockheed Martin retaliated against him.
Hills has failed to establish that there is a genuine issue of
material fact regarding his age discrimination and retaliation
claims. See Faruki v. Parsons, 123 F.3d 315, 318 (5th Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is
AFFIRMED.
3