Mary Cooney v. THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN BOB EVANS FARMS, INC., M E M O R A N D U M a…

1
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 10a0547n.06
No. 09-2094
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
MARY COONEY, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellant, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
) STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
v. ) THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
) MICHIGAN
)
BOB EVANS FARMS, INC., ) M E M O R A N D U M
a foreign corporation, ) O P I N I O N
)
Defendant-Appellee. )
BEFORE: NORRIS, ROGERS, and WHITE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Mary Cooney filed this action against her former employer, Bob Evans
Farms, Inc., after she was terminated from her position as a server at the company’s Fenton,
Michigan restaurant. Her complaint alleges that this adverse employment decision was taken in
retaliation for her threat “to report Defendant to the government for allowing marijuana to be smoked
on company property” and because she articulated her perception that she had suffered
discrimination based upon her sex. Complaint at ¶¶ 38, 43. Plaintiff contends that this retaliatory
behavior respectively violated the Whistleblowers’ Protection Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 15.362, and
the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 37.2701. The district court granted

-- 1 of 2 --

Cooney v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc.
No. 09-2094
2
summary judgment to defendant. On appeal, our jurisdiction is premised upon diversity of
citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
We have carefully considered the record and briefs of counsel. Having done so, we conclude
that a detailed opinion would serve no useful purpose because the panel adopts the reasoning set
forth in the Opinion and Order of the district court, which was filed on August 17, 2009. See Cooney
v. Bob Evans Farms, Inc., 645 F.Supp. 2d 620 (E.D. Mich. 2009). To the extent that the district
court’s opinion could be read to imply that plaintiff’s Whistleblower claim somehow involved her
sexual discrimination claim, we note that her allegation in her complaint argument on appeal is that
her Whistleblower claim related to her purported threat to report illicit drug use on company
property. Since the record contains no evidence that she ever in fact made such a threat, the district
court’s conclusion that she failed to establish the causation element of a prima facie case is correct.
The judgment is affirmed.

-- 2 of 2 --