Joanne Ventra v. Lake County General Health, District

*The Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting
by designation.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0275n.06
Filed: April 21, 2006
Case No. 05-3571
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
JOANNE VENTRA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
LAKE COUNTY GENERAL HEALTH,
DISTRICT, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
_______________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: BATCHELDER and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; ZATKOFF, District Judge. *
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

-- 1 of 2 --

2
rebut the defendants’ legitimate nondiscriminatory 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.

-- 2 of 2 --