UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 00-30963
LADDIE McVICKER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
ALBEMARLE CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana
(97-CV-11)
March 15, 2001
Before REAVLEY, SMITH and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
In this employment discrimination lawsuit brought pursuant to
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621
et seq., Laddie McVicker appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to Albemarle Corporation (“Albemarle”).
McVicker was an employee of Albemarle in its Distribution
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
Department, and he had worked for Albemarle and its predecessors in
interest since 1969. In March 1996, Albemarle instituted a
reduction in force (“RIF”) in connection with the sale of its
Olefins and Derivatives business. The Distribution Department was
reorganized and McVicker’s position was eliminated. Two new
positions developed as a result of the reorganization, but McVicker
was not selected for either of these positions because Albemarle
believed that he was not the most suitable candidate for those
positions as he lacked, among other qualifications, a chemical
engineering degree. The two positions were ultimately filled by
employees younger than McVicker. Albemarle moved for summary
judgment arguing that McVicker had failed to establish a prima
facie case of discrimination or, alternatively, that he had failed
to establish that Albemarle’s proffered legitimate, non-
discriminatory reason for not selecting McVicker, the RIF, was a
pretext for intentional, age-based discrimination.
The district court concluded that although a reasonable fact
finder could find that McVicker established a prima facie case of
age discrimination, McVicker failed to offer proof or create a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether Albemarle’s stated
reasons for terminating McVicker’s employment were pretextual or
that the real reason for his termination was intentional age
discrimination.
We review a district court’s award of summary judgment de
novo, applying the same standards that would have been applicable
2
in the district court. See Sherrod v. American Airlines, Inc.,
132 F.3d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir. 1998). Having conducted such a
review, having reviewed the record of this case, and having
considered the parties’ respective briefing with the benefit of
argument, we conclude that for substantially the same reasons
articulated by the district court in its order, Albemarle is
entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, the judgment of the
district court in favor of Albemarle Corporation is affirmed in all
respects. Albemarle’s request for attorney’s fees pursuant to Rule
38 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3