Case Name: Lisa LOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORIANA HOUSE, INC., DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-08-06
Citations: 340 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 08-4325
Parties: Lisa LOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORIANA HOUSE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: BEFORE: CLAY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and JORDAN, District Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 340
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
Lisa LOTT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ORIANA HOUSE, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
No. 08-4325.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Aug. 6, 2009.
BEFORE: CLAY and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and JORDAN, District Judge.
The Honorable R. Leon Jordan, Senior United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Tennessee, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff-Appellant Lisa Lott ("Lott") appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Ap-pellee Oriana House, Inc. ("Defendant") on her claims alleging gender and race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and breach of implied contract of employment under Ohio law.
In a well-reasoned opinion, the district court concluded that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment with respect to Lott's discrimination claims because (1) Defendant provided a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for discharging Lott, namely, her failure to adequately maintain client files and her falsification of records; and (2) Lott could not show that Defendant's reason was pretextual. Lott v. Oriana House, Inc., No. 3:07CV1084, 2008 WL 3889983, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64383, at *8-14 (N.D.Ohio Aug.19, 2008). The court also concluded that Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Lott's implied contract claim because, in light of documents establishing that Lott's employment was at-will, there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Lott and Defendant entered into an implied contract of employment. Id., at *14-16.
After carefully considering the record, the parties' briefs, and the parties' oral arguments, we agree that summary judgment was properly granted with respect to all claims. We conclude that a panel opinion further addressing the issues raised would not serve a jurisprudential purpose, and we therefore AFFIRM for the reasons set forth by the district court.