Case Name: Lydia WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHAYNE SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-18
Citations: 123 F. App'x 699
Docket Number: No. 04-5159
Parties: Lydia WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHAYNE SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NORRIS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; TODD, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 699–699

Head Matter:
Lydia WISEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WHAYNE SUPPLY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 04-5159.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Feb. 18, 2005.
Michael L. Boylan, Louisville, KY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
John O. Sheller, Smith & Smith, Louisville, KY, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before NORRIS and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; TODD, District Judge.
The Honorable James D. Todd, United States District Judge for the Western District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Lydia Wiseman was employed as an environmental specialist at Whayne Supply Company ('Whayne Supply") from October 1995 until December 2000. Wiseman filed a complaint alleging that Whayne Supply violated the Kentucky Civil Rights Act, Ky.Rev.Stat. Chapter 344, by discriminating against her on the basis of her sex and by creating a hostile work environment in the Jefferson County, Kentucky, Circuit Court on February 15, 2001. Whayne Supply removed the action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky on March 2, 2001. Whayne Supply subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on May 15, 2003. The district court granted the motion on January 12, 2004.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Whayne Supply. Because the reasons for this determination have been fully articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court on the basis of the reasoning set out by that court in its opinion and order entered on January 12, 2004.