Gregory Suslovic v. Black & Decker, Inc. & Porter Cable

The Honorable Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, United States District Judge for the Eastern*
District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
Suslovic later withdrew his ADA claim, relying solely on Ohio law for support of his1
disability-based claim.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0686n.06
Filed: November 12, 2008
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4042
______________________________________________________________________________
GREGORY SUSLOVIC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
BLACK & DECKER, INC. & PORTER CABLE,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
BEFORE: DAUGHTREY and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges, and VAN TATENHOVE,
District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. The Appellant, Gregory Suslovic sued the Appellees, Black & Decker, Inc.
and Porter Cable in the Northern Division of Ohio alleging age discrimination in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4112. In addition, Suslovic
claimed that the Appellees discriminated against him based on his mental disability in violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Ohio Revised Code 4112. Finally, Suslovic claimed1
that the decision to terminate him was unlawful under the public policy of Ohio. In a well-written

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 07-4042
Suslovic v. Black & Decker, et al
2
memorandum opinion, the district court concluded that the record contained no direct or
circumstantial evidence of age discrimination. Likewise, it concluded that the record lacked a
sufficient basis to establish any violation of the Ohio Revised Code or Ohio public policy. Suslovic
filed the instant appeal challenging that decision.
Because the reasons supporting summary judgment in favor of the Appellees have been well-
articulated by the district court’s thoughtful opinion, a detailed written opinion by this Court would
serve no valuable purpose. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment
on the basis of its written opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --