Ms. Boardman admitted in her deposition testimony that her job performance did not meet acceptable standards by the beginning of 2006. Her performance in the eyes of UPSGSC continued to be unsatisfactory throughout 2006 and 2007. On October 16, 2007, she was placed on a formal Performance Improvement Program. Although she was not given a copy of the program itself, Ms. Boardman was warned that she had been placed on the program and that unless her work performance improved over the next thirty (30) days her employment would be terminated. During this time, daily status reports and weekly meetings were held with Ms. Boardman to review her performance. She did not receive satisfactory ratings and was told that she was not making the required progress. Before her employment was terminated, Ms. Boardman's status was independently reviewed by UPSGSC's corporate human resources, and the conclusion was reached that because her performance was unsatisfactory, and because she had failed to address her performance issues after being given a fair opportunity to do so, the termination of her employment was justified. Ms. Boardman was terminated on December 6, 2007.

Based on these facts, the court found it to be clear that Ms. Boardman could not make out a prima facie case of discrimination because she could not establish that she was meeting the legitimate expectations of her employer. Moreover, assuming that she had made out a prima facie case, she has not established that the reason articulated by UPSGSC for the termination of her employment, her unsatisfactory work performance, was pre-textual. For these reasons, UPSGSC's motion for summary judgment was granted.