Heather Carman v. Erie County, et al

Filing

Per Curiam OPINION filed : We AFFIRM the district court's order granting summary judgment, decision not for publication. Danny J. Boggs, Circuit Judge; David W. McKeague, Circuit Judge and William O. Bertelsman, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

Download PDF
Case: 14-4022 Document: 34-1 Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 1 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 15a0781n.06 Case No. 14-4022 FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT HEATHER LOVE CARMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ERIE COUNTY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Dec 02, 2015 DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO OPINION BEFORE: BOGGS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge. * PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Heather Love Carman applied for four different jobs with the defendants1—two assistant prosecutor positions with the Erie County Prosecutor’s Office and two director positions with the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services. She never received an interview for any of the four jobs, nor was she offered any of the positions. Carman alleges that the defendants did not hire her because she is African American. The defendants claim that they did not hire her because (1) an assistant prosecutor who had formerly worked with Carman in private practice still held animosity toward her and threatened to quit if Carman * The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. 1 Plaintiff’s claims are against Erie County, the Erie County Board of Commissioners, the Erie County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services. Case: 14-4022 Document: 34-1 Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 2 Case No. 14-4022 Carman v. Erie County, et al. was hired and (2) because Carman was never the better candidate (and on two occasions was unqualified for the position). The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Carman now appeals. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). Having duly considered the district court’s opinion in light of Carman’s appellate arguments, we find no error. Her arguments are meritless and are fairly and adequately addressed in the district court’s opinion. To issue another opinion reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court’s order granting summary judgment. -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?