Williams v. Bell Laboratories ( 1994 )

USCA1 Opinion

          September 27, 1994
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


                                 ____________________


        No. 94-1058

                                 RICHARD F. WILLIAMS,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                 BELL LABORATORIES, A/K/A AT & T TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.


                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


                   [Hon. Steven J. McAuliffe, U.S. District Judge]
                                              ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Richard F. Williams on brief pro se.
            ___________________
            David J. Kerman,  David T. Lyons  and Ropes  & Gray  on brief  for
            _______________   ______________      _____________
        appellee.


                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________
                 




















                      Per  Curiam.     Plaintiff brought  a pro  se civil
                      ___________                           ___  __

            action   alleging  wrongful  termination   of  employment  in

            violation  of  the  Age  Discrimination  in  Employment   Act

            ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C.    621-634 (1988).  After some discovery,

            defendant  moved  for  summary  judgment,  arguing  that  (1)

            plaintiff had not been  the defendant's "employee" within the

            meaning  of  the  law,   but  rendered  services  through  an

            independent  contractor,  and  (2)  defendant's  decision  to

            terminate plaintiff's services was based on  legitimate, non-

            discriminatory reasons.   The district  court granted summary

            judgment on the ground that even if plaintiff could establish

            a  prima facie case of  age discrimination, he  had failed to

            offer  minimally  sufficient   proof  that  the   defendant's

            articulated non-discriminatory reason was a pretext, and that

            the real reason for  terminating plaintiff's services was age

            discrimination.     The   court  thus   did  not   reach  the

            definitional issue.

                      Reviewing the dismissal de  novo, we agree with the
                                              __  ____

            district court's  analysis and  affirm substantially for  the

            reasons set forth  in Judge McAuliffe's thorough order.   See
                                                                      ___

            Woods  v.  Friction Materials,  Inc.,  1994  U.S. App.  LEXIS
            _____      _________________________

            19755,  at *9-14 (1st Cir.  July 29, 1994);  LeBlanc v. Great
                                                         _______    _____

            Am. Ins. Co., 6 F.3d 836, 843 (1st Cir.  1993), cert. denied,
            ____________                                    ____________

            114 S. Ct.  1398 (1994).  We do not  consider the new factual





















            contentions raised for the first time in plaintiff's brief on

            appeal.  

                      Affirmed.
                      ________















































                                         -3-