Case Name: John J. FUERTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-10
Citations: 354 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 09-5321
Parties: John J. FUERTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before: COLE, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 354
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
John J. FUERTES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 09-5321.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Dec. 10, 2009.
Before: COLE, GIBBONS, and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
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 du-plicative, 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.