Summary
finding that the plaintiff was "on the verge" of reporting when she informed management of her intent to report violations to the Michigan Department of Civil Rights
Summary of this case from Lemanski v. Rev Grp.Opinion
NO. 09-2094.
August 25, 2010.
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Before: NORRIS, ROGERS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
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 summary judgment to defendant. On appeal, our jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of citizenship. 28 U.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 plaintiffs 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.