Mary Cooney v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., (6th Cir. 2010)

Status: Not Published

Docket Number: 09-2094

Linked as:

Text

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION

File Name: 10a0547n.06

No. 09-2094 FILED

Aug 25, 2010

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS LEONARD GREEN, Clerk

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

MARY COONEY

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

BOB EVANS FARMS, INC.

a foreign corporation

Defendant-Appellee.

BEFORE: NORRIS, ROGERS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Mary Cooney filed this action against her former employer, Bob Evans Farms, Inc., after she was terminated from her position as a server at the company's Fenton Michigan restaurant. Her complaint alleges that this adverse employment decision was taken in retaliation for her threat "to report Defendant to the government for allowing marijuana to be smoked on company property" and because she articulated her perception that she had suffered discrimination based upon her sex. Complaint at ¶¶ 38, 43. Plaintiff contends that this retaliatory behavior respectively violated the Whistleblowers' Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.362, and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701. The district court granted Cooney v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc.

No. 09-2094 summary judgment to defendant. On appeal, our jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of citizenship. 28U.S.C. § 1332.

We have carefully considered the record and briefs of counsel. Having done so, we conclude that a detailed opinion would serve no useful purpose because the panel adopts the reasoning set forth in the Opinion and Order of the district court, which was filed on August 17, 2009. See Cooney v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 645 F.Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Mich. 2009). To the extent that the district court's opinion could be read to imply that plaintiff's Whistleblower claim somehow involved her sexual discrimination claim, we note that her allegation in her complaint argument on appeal is that her Whistleblower claim related to her purported threat to report illicit drug use on company property. Since the record contains no evidence that she ever in fact made such a threat, the district court's conclusion that she failed to establish the causation element of a prima facie case is correct.

The judgment is affirmed.