Case Name: Teresa MARSH Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., doing business as South Central Bell Telephone Company, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-01-09
Citations: 1 F. App'x 338
Docket Number: No. 99-5962
Parties: Teresa MARSH Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., doing business as South Central Bell Telephone Company, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 1
Pages: 338–339

Head Matter:
Teresa MARSH Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BELLSOUTH TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC., doing business as South Central Bell Telephone Company, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 99-5962.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Jan. 9, 2001.
Before RYAN and NORRIS, Circuit Judges, and EDGAR, District Judge.
The Honorable R. Allan Edgar, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff Teresa Marsh, appeals from an order of the district court granting summary judgment to defendant. BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., doing business as South Central Bell Telephone Company, on her employment discrimination claim.
Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant.
The district court did not directly address plaintiffs double-workload claim. She alleges that no one else in her group received special assignments, but does not establish that anyone in the group was similarly situated to her for purposes of these assignments. She also fails to offer an example of an employee who was paid extra for special assignments. For these reasons, her claim about her workload fails, whether she is objecting to the assignment, evaluation method, or pay.
Because the reasoning which supports summary judgment for defendant on the other issues raised by plaintiff has been articulated by the district court, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed upon the reasoning employed by that court in its Memorandum Opinion entered on December 16,1998.