Lisa Lott v. Oriana House, Inc. , 340 F. App'x 305 ( 2009 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 09a0544n.06
FILED
No. 08-4325 Aug 06, 2009
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LISA LOTT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
ORIANA HOUSE, INC., NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO.
Defendant-Appellee.
/
BEFORE: CLAY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges; and JORDAN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Lott (“Lott”) appeals the district court’s grant
of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Oriana House, Inc. (“Defendant”) on her
claims alleging gender and race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq., and breach of implied contract of employment under
Ohio law.
In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded that Defendant was entitled to
summary judgment with respect to Lott’s discrimination claims because (1) Defendant provided
a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging Lott, namely, her failure to adequately
maintain client files and her falsification of records; and (2) Lott could not show that
*
The Honorable R. Leon Jordan, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, sitting by designation.
No. 08-4325
Defendant’s reason was pretextual. Lott v. Oriana House, Inc., No. 3:07CV1084, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 64383, at *8-14 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 19, 2008). The court also concluded that
Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Lott’s implied contract claim because, in light
of documents establishing that Lott’s employment was at-will, there was no genuine issue of
material fact as to whether Lott and Defendant entered into an implied contract of employment.
Id., at *14-16.
After carefully considering the record, the parties’ briefs, and the parties’ oral arguments,
we agree that summary judgment was properly granted with respect to all claims. We conclude
that a panel opinion further addressing the issues raised would not serve a jurisprudential
purpose, and we therefore AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the district court.
-2-