Mary Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Company

Good Law
104 F.3d 267·96 Daily Journal DAR 15653·1996 WL 738830·69 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 44,491·77 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 303
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 30, 199695-56003California2,129 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

OVERVIEW

Mary Bradley appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Hare-ourt, Brace and Company (“Harcourt”) on her claims of sex discrimination and disability discrimination. We must decide whether Bradley has produced sufficient evidence to establish a genuine factual dispute regarding: (1) whether Harcourt’s articulated justifications for her termination-poor work performance and misconduct-are pretexts for unlawful sex discrimination; ■ and (2) whether Bradley has an impairment that substantially limits her ability to work. Because we conclude that Bradley has produced no meaningful evidence to rebut Harcourt’s proffered reasons for her termination or to counter the strong inference of nondiscrimination that arises because the same person who hired Bradley fired her only a year later, we affirm the grant of summary judgment for Harcourt on Bradley’s sex discrimination claims. Further, because Bradley has produced no material evidence that she has a disability, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on the disability claim.

BACKGROUND

Evelyn Sasmor, a senior vice president at Harcourt, hired Mary Bradley as an information services manager in February…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.