IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-20350
Summary Calendar
__________________
BETTE SUE VIETH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
EXXON CORPORATION, doing business as
EXXON COMPANY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee,
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-94-450
- - - - - - - - - -
December 14, 1995
Before JOHNSON, DUHÉ, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Bette Sue Vieth appeals from the district court’s entry of
summary judgment in favor of defendant Exxon Corporation in her
suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”).
Vieth contends that the district court erred by granting the
defendant’s motion for summary judgment because genuine issues of
material fact existed with regard to Exxon’s state of mind and
motive for “papering” Vieth’s file with unfavorable material.
Because Vieth failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue
1
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession.” Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-20350
-2-
of material fact with regard to whether Exxon’s proffered
explanation for Vieth’s termination was pretextual, the district
court did not err by granting Exxon’s motion for summary judgment.
See Amburgey v. Corhart Refractories Corp., 936 F.2d 805, 812-13
(5th Cir. 1991).
AFFIRMED.