Gregory Suslovic v. Black & Decker, Inc., et al, No. 07-4042 (6th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Name: 08a0686n.06 Filed: November 12, 2008 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 07-4042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 4112.1 Finally, Suslovic claimed that the decision to terminate him was unlawful under the public policy of Ohio. In a well-written * The Honorable Gregory F. Van Tatenhove, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation. 1 Suslovic later withdrew his ADA claim, relying solely on Ohio law for support of his disability-based claim. Case No. 07-4042 Suslovic v. Black & Decker, et al 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 wellarticulated 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
