Cossette v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter
United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
No. 08-1245
PAUL H. COSSETTE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
Defendant, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
[Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
Before
Lynch, Chief Judge,
Torruella and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
Paul H. Cossette on brief pro se.
T. David Plourde, Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Thomas P.
Colantuono, United States Attorney, on brief for appellee.
October 27, 2008
Per Curiam. Appellant Paul H. Cossette has appealed the
grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
(USDA) on Cossette's claim that the USDA failed to hire him due to
age discrimination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. We review, de novo, the
district court's grant of summary judgment. Arroyo-Audifred v.
Verizon Wireless, Inc., 527 F.3d 215, 217 (1st Cir. 2008) (reciting
standard of review).
Upon de novo review, we affirm, essentially for the
reasons stated in the district court's opinion. Cossette v.
Johanns, 525 F.2d 242 (D. N.H. 2007). We need only briefly address
here Cossette's appellate claims. Despite Cossette's insistence
that the "specialized experience" required was restricted to
financially-based experience, the record supports the legitimacy of
the USDA's interpretation of its "specialized experience"
qualification to require the particular knowledge, skills, and
abilities that is typically in or related to the natural resources
associated with the position sought. As Cossette did not possess
this specialized experience, he was not qualified for the position
and, thus, did not make out a prima facie case of age
discrimination. See Arroyo-Audifred v. Verizon Wireless, Inc., 527
F.3d at 219 (setting out what constitutes a prima facie case).
And, since Cossette did not make out a prima facie case of age
discrimination, Cossette's complaint that the district court failed
-2-
to address his argument of disparate treatment is misplaced. See
Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d 32, 40-41 (1st Cir. 2008) (a claim of
disparate treatment is legally insufficient if claimant not able to
meet prima facie burden of showing that he is qualified for the
position).
Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion
in denying either Cossette's motion for reconsideration or his
motion to amend that motion for reconsideration. Ruiz Rivera v.
Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81 (1st Cir.) (reciting
standard of review), petition for cert. filed, 77 U.S.L.W. 3001(Jun. 19, 2008). In seeking reconsideration, Cossette simply
restated arguments that the court had already properly rejected and
in seeking to amend that motion Cossette sought to proffer
documents that were neither newly discovered nor, in any event,
created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Cossette was
qualified for the position. See U.S. Steel v. M. DeMatteo Const.
Co., 315 F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir. 2002) (documents in one's
possession, even if unreviewed, do not constitute newly discovered
evidence).
The judgment of the district court entered on December 4,
2007 is affirmed.
-3-