Katrina Brown v. Ohio State University

385 F. App'x 486 (6th Cir. 2010) · United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · July 12, 2010 · No. 09-3421

Summary

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for The Ohio State University and Karen Holbrook in Katrina Brown’s race-discrimination claims arising from her demotion and termination. The court held that, although Brown established a prima facie case under Title VII, she presented no evidence that the university’s stated performance-based reasons were pretextual. The court adopted the district court’s reasoning and affirmed the judgment.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Writing for the Court
Circuit Judge Danny J. Boggs; Circuit Judge Ronald Lee Gilman; Chief District Judge Jon P. McCalla, sitting by designation
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
July 12, 2010
Docket number
09-3421
Procedural posture
Brown appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants and dismissal with prejudice of her race-discrimination claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99.
Standard of review
De novo review of the grant of summary judgment. Summary judgment is proper when the record shows no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
Unpublished, nonprecedential Sixth Circuit opinion
Parties
Katrina Brown v. The Ohio State University, Karen Holbrook, in her official capacity as President of The Ohio State University
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

racial discriminationemployment discriminationtitle viisummary judgmentappellate procedure

Practice areas

employment lawcivil rightsemployment discrimination

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on Brown's Title VII and related race-discrimination claims arising from her demotion and termination.
  2. Whether Brown presented sufficient evidence that the defendants' stated legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the demotion and termination were pretexts for race discrimination.
  3. Whether Brown's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 and Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99 survived on appeal.

Holdings

  1. Although Brown established a prima facie case, she failed to present evidence that the defendants' legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for her demotion and termination were pretexts for race discrimination.
  2. Brown's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 were disposed of together with her Title VII claim because they were based on the same alleged disparate treatment and race discrimination.
  3. Brown waived any state-law issues that might differ from her federal claims because she did not separately argue them on appeal.

Key quotations

if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. (slip op. at 7)
It is well-established that issues adverted to in a perfunctory manner, unaccompanied by some effort at developed argumentation, are deemed waived. (slip op. at 8)

Factual background

Katrina Brown, an African-American employee of The Ohio State University Medical Center East, was promoted to Director of Perioperative Services in January 2004. Her supervisors documented continuing concerns about her communication, decision-making, management, leadership, and responsiveness to performance expectations, and she was demoted to Nurse Manager in December 2005. After additional documented performance problems, Brown was terminated in July 2006; she alleged that both adverse actions were motivated by race.

Procedural history

Brown filed her complaint on May 24, 2007, after exhausting her administrative remedies, alleging that her demotion and termination were based on race. The district court granted OSU's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment for the defendants on March 23, 2009. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, adopting the district court's reasoning and analysis.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…