JANET MAYS V. QWEST CORPORATION, No. 11-15556 (9th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 21 2012 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS JANET R. MAYS, No. 11-15556 Plaintiff - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-01140-ROS v. MEMORANDUM * QWEST CORPORATION, a foreign company, AKA Qwest Communications Company LLC, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roslyn O. Silver, Chief District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 12, 2012 San Francisco, California Before: FERNANDEZ, GOULD, and BEA, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-appellant Janet Mays appeals from the judgment entered following the district court s grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of defendantappellee Qwest Corporation. Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. not recite them further except as necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. Mays did not establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination as required under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Mays failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact that she was qualified for the Lee Circle fiber splicing position in 2007 because the uncontroverted evidence showed that she did not request a transfer to fiber splicing at Lee Circle on her LMR form at that time. Supposing she made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, Mays claim further fails for the independent reason that she has failed to create a triable issue of material fact as to pretext. 411 U.S. at 804. Finally, since Mays was transferred to Lee Circle as soon as she was eligible after filing a request to transfer to Lee Circle, under Bradley v. Harcourt, Brace and Co., 104 F.3d 267, 270 (9th Cir. 1996), there is a strong inference that no one at Qwest held a discriminatory animus against Mays. AFFIRMED.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.