
    Ida HAWKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHEPPARD PRATT HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee, and Bowie State University; UBA Barake Counseling Center, Defendants.
    No. 01-2247.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 14, 2002.
    Decided Feb. 25, 2002.
    
      Ida Hawkins, Appellant Pro Se. Bruce Stephen Harrison, Shawe & Rosenthal, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Ida Hawkins appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of her former employer, Sheppard Pratt Hospital, and dismissing her age employment discrimination action. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses that this appeal is without merit. We find that Hawkins failed to establish a prima facie ease of age discrimination. O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp., 517 U.S. 308, 312-13, 116 S.Ct. 1307, 134 L.Ed.2d 433 (1996); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973); Lawrence v. Mars, Inc., 955 F.2d 902, 905-06 (4th Cir.1992). Specifically, we find no genuine issue of material fact contrary to the district court’s conclusion that Hawkins was not performing her job at a level which met her employer’s legitimate expectations. The evidence demonstrated that, in blatant violation of her employer’s policies, Hawkins intentionally or recklessly disclosed the identity of a former patient under circumstances not connected with any official business of the employer. Hawkins’ unsworn, self-serving, conclusory statements in opposition to the employer’s evidence is insufficient to stave off summary judgment. Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 455 (4th Cir.1989).

We further agree with the district court that Hawkins failed to establish that the employer’s action in reducing her hours was actionable. The reduction did not adversely change the essential terms, conditions, or benefits of Hawkins’ employment, see, e.g., Munday v. Waste Management of N. Am., Inc., 126 F.3d 239, 243 (4th Cir. 1997), nor was there any genuine issue of material fact presented to dispute the employer’s evidence that the reduction in hours was due to staffing and budgetary issues.

Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that Hawkins established a prima facie case of employment discrimination, we find that she failed to rebut the legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons the employer proffered to support its decisions regarding her termination. Texas Dep’t of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254-56, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981); Conkwright v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 933 F.2d 231, 234-35 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we cannot say that the district court’s finding of non-discrimination was clearly erroneous. Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 574, 105 S.Ct. 1504, 84 L.Ed.2d 518 (1985).

We therefore affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Sheppard Pratt Hospital. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  