USCA1 Opinion
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[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]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-