Heather Love Carman v. Erie County

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 15a0781n.06
Case No. 14-4022
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
HEATHER LOVE CARMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ERIE COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF OHIO
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: BOGGS and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; BERTELSMAN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Heather Love Carman applied for four different jobs with the
defendants1—two assistant prosecutor positions with the Erie County Prosecutor’s Office and
two director positions with the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services. She never
received an interview for any of the four jobs, nor was she offered any of the positions. Carman
alleges that the defendants did not hire her because she is African American. The defendants
claim that they did not hire her because (1) an assistant prosecutor who had formerly worked
with Carman in private practice still held animosity toward her and threatened to quit if Carman
*The Honorable William O. Bertelsman, United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.
1 Plaintiff’s claims are against Erie County, the Erie County Board of Commissioners, the Erie
County Prosecutor’s Office, and the Erie County Department of Job and Family Services.

-- 1 of 2 --

Case No. 14-4022
Carman v. Erie County, et al.
- 2 -
was hired and (2) because Carman was never the better candidate (and on two occasions was
unqualified for the position). The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary
judgment, and Carman now appeals.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Chen v. Dow Chem.
Co., 580 F.3d 394, 400 (6th Cir. 2009). Having duly considered the district court’s opinion in
light of Carman’s appellate arguments, we find no error. Her arguments are meritless and are
fairly and adequately addressed in the district court’s opinion. To issue another opinion
reiterating the analysis would be duplicative and unnecessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the
district court’s order granting summary judgment.

-- 2 of 2 --