John Fuertes v. Ford Motor Company , 354 F. App'x 261 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                 NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
    File Name: 09a0778n.06
    No. 09-5321
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
    FILED
    JOHN J. FUERTES,                                   )                               Dec 10, 2009
    )                         LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                        )
    )
    v.                                                 )   ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
    )   STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
    FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC.,                          )   WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
    )
    Defendant-Appellee.                         )
    )
    Before: COLE, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
    JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant John Fuertes appeals the
    decision of the district court to grant summary judgment for defendant-appellee Ford Motor Co.
    (“Ford”). Fuertes sued his former employer, Ford, under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
    42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., alleging claims of national heritage discrimination, retaliation, hostile
    work environment, and interference with employment opportunities and prospective advantage.
    Following a period of discovery, the district court granted Ford’s motion for summary judgment on
    all claims, finding several of the claims to be time-barred and concluding that Fuertes failed to
    establish that the reasons offered by Ford for its promotion decisions were a pretext for prohibited
    discrimination, that there was any causal connection between the protected activities undertaken by
    the plaintiff and Ford’s decisions, that Ford undertook any actions to interfere with Fuertes’s efforts
    to gain new employment, or that any inappropriate conduct in the workplace was so severe or
    pervasive as to foster a hostile work environment.
    After carefully reviewing the record, the applicable law, and the parties’ briefs, we find that
    the district court’s opinion carefully and correctly sets out the facts and the governing law. Because
    this court’s issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be
    duplicative, we affirm on the basis of the district court’s well-reasoned memorandum opinion and
    order of February 13, 2009, granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-5321

Citation Numbers: 354 F. App'x 261

Judges: Cole, Gibbons, Griffin

Filed Date: 12/10/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024