UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30763
RAMONA N. RATCLIFF,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(01-CV-2618-R)
_________________________________________________________________
December 31, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramona Ratcliff appeals the summary judgment awarded against
her claims for: age and race discrimination under the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII; and denial
of pension rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).
Ratcliff was employed as a secretary by Exxon for 17 years,
until a downsizing in 1999, connected with the company’s merger
with Mobil. In December 1999, Ratcliff was laid off and given a
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
severance package. In September 2000, ExxonMobil conducted a
search to fill eight positions in its New Orleans office.
Ratcliff, with 16 others, applied for these positions. She
was then 54 years old. When she applied, she spoke with the hiring
supervisor, who noted: “I thought you took the pension”. Ratcliff
was one of five applicants considered for more than one position.
In both instances, however, ExxonMobil hired another applicant. Of
the eight hirees, six were minorities and three were 49, 51 and 58
years old, respectively.
Ratcliff had received average to low performance ratings
during her previous Exxon employment. And, her former supervisor
informed those in charge of the hiring decisions that Ratcliff
lacked necessary computer skills and had shown no desire to improve
them. The hired candidates were allegedly more qualified than
Ratcliff. In one case, the employee had more than 28 years of
experience with Exxon and had consistently received higher grades
than Ratcliff on her performance reports. In the other case, the
employee, unlike Ratcliff, had extensive experience with relevant
computer programs.
A summary judgment is reviewed de novo. E.g., Daniels v. City
of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500, 502 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
951 (2001). Such judgment is proper when there exists no genuine
issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as
a matter of law. FED. R. CIV. P. 56(c). We “view the facts and the
2
inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the
nonmoving party”. Daniels at 502.
The district court accepted that Ratcliff had stated a prima
facie case of discrimination under the McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), burden-shifting scheme. Citing the
relative qualifications of the applicants, ExxonMobil offered
legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the employment decision.
Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff may show those
reasons are pretextual. Ratcliff essentially bases her claim of
pretext on her conclusory opinion that she was more qualified than
those hired for the positions. “In order to establish pretext by
showing the losing candidate has superior qualifications, the
losing candidate’s qualifications must leap from the record and cry
out ... that [she] was vastly — or even clearly — more qualified
for the subject job.” Price v. Federal Express Corp., 283 F.3d 715,
723 (5th Cir. 2002) (quotation marks and internal citations
omitted). Ratliff has not satisfied that standard.
Ratcliff also claims ExxonMobil’s refusal to rehire her
violates § 510 of ERISA (“unlawful ... to discharge ... or
discriminate against a participant ... for the purpose of
interfering with the attainment of any right to which such
participant may become entitled under the plan.”). 29 U.S.C. §
1140. She bases this claim on the statement made to her by the
hiring supervisor. Even assuming a non-employee could bring suit
3
under § 510 for a company’s failure to rehire her, Ratcliff has
offered no evidence of discriminatory intent to prevent the
attainment of benefits. See Stafford v. True Temper Sports, 123
F.3d 291, 295 (5th Cir. 1997).
AFFIRMED
4