Karen Slater v. Consumers Energy Company

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 16a0097n.06
CASE NO. 14-2423
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
KAREN SLATER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE WESTERN
DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
Before: BATCHELDER, ROGERS, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. Karen Slater is a former employee of
Consumers Energy Company who developed a disability following a severe leg injury and
associated surgery, which limited her ability to stand or sit for prolonged periods of time. After
Consumers fired her in 2012, Slater sued Consumers and two of her former supervisors in federal
court, claiming, among other things, disability discrimination under the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA), and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities
Civil Rights Act, M.C.L. § 37.1101 et seq. (MPDCRA).
The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding that Slater could
not prove that she was qualified for the position even with reasonable accommodation for her
disability, nor could she prove that Consumers’ legitimate non-discriminatory reason for firing
her was pretextual. Slater v. Consumers Energy, No. 1:13-cv-467, 2014 WL 5019899, at *8
(W.D. Mich., Oct. 7, 2014). Slater appealed, arguing that, with the facts construed in her favor,
she had produced sufficient evidence to create a jury question over both of these issues.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 14-2423
Karen Slater v. Consumers Energy Co., et al.
2
After carefully reviewing the district court’s opinion, the briefs, and the record in this
case, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the
defendants. As the district court correctly set out the applicable law and correctly applied that
law to the undisputed material facts contained in the record, issuance of a full written opinion by
this court would serve no jurisprudential purpose.1
Accordingly, on the grounds stated in the district court’s well-reasoned opinion, we
AFFIRM.
1 Because the legal conclusions in parts III.A.2 and III.A.3 of the district court’s opinion are not necessary
to our judgment, we express no opinion with respect to those parts.

-- 2 of 2 --