Case Name: Joanne VENTRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE COUNTY GENERAL HEALTH, DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-04-21
Citations: 176 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 05-3571
Parties: Joanne VENTRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE COUNTY GENERAL HEALTH, DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 176
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Joanne VENTRA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LAKE COUNTY GENERAL HEALTH, DISTRICT, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 05-3571.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
April 21, 2006.
Eric D. Hall, Medina, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Abraham Cantor, Concord, OH, for Defendants-Appellees.
Before: BATCHELDER and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; ZATKOFF, District Judge.
The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
Plaintiff-Appellant Joanne Ventra appeals the district court's order granting summary judgment to the defendants, the Lake County General Health District, its Commissioner, Joel Lucia, and one of its division supervisors, Janet Merrick, on Ventra's claims that by failing to hire her as a dietician, the defendants discriminated against her in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA"), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., and Ohio law. The district court held that Ventra had failed to establish a prima facie case under the ADEA because she had not produced any evidence that the individual actually hired for the position was younger than she, and that, even assuming a prima facie case, Ventra had failed to demonstrate pretext because she had not produced any evidence to rebut the defendants' legitimate nondiseriminatory reason for not offering the position to Ventra. Further, the district court assumed for purposes of the summary judgment proceedings that Ventra had met the requirements of a prima facie ADA claim, but held that, as was the case with the ADEA claim, Ventra had not presented evidence to demonstrate pretext. Because discrimination claims brought under Ohio law are reviewed under the same evidentiary standards applicable to claims brought under the ADEA and ADA, the district court granted summary judgment on the state law claims as well. Ventra appeals only the granting of summary judgment on the federal claims.
Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having carefully considered the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the district court's order thoroughly and accurately sets out both the undisputed facts and the governing law. Because the issuance of a full opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose and would be duplicative, we AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment on the basis of the district court's well-reasoned opinion.