Sarah M. Persley v. Pacific Bell Directory

73 F.3d 370 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Sarah M. PERSLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PACIFIC BELL DIRECTORY, Defendant-Appellee. No. 94-56391. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 13, 1995. * Decided Dec. 18, 1995. Before: ALDISERT ** , FARRIS, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM *** 2 Sarah M. Persley appeals pro se the district court's grant of Pacific Bell Directory's motion for summary judgment on her claim brought pursuant to the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 621-634 . 1 We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 , and we affirm. 3 Persley has come forward with no evidence to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. See Sakellar v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., 765 F.2d 1453, 1455 (9th Cir.1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1084 (1986). But even assuming she satisfied this threshold burden, Pacific Bell Directory met its burden to "articulat[e] some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for…