(“If a moving party fails to carry its initial burden of production, the non-moving party has no obligation to produce anything.”) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Defendants offered only the following record evidence in support of their motion below: 1) an unexplained, general citation to 52 pages of exhibits; 2) citation to deposition testimony wherein Plaintiff admits to marijuana use during the period in which she was employed, although not while on the job (Defendants did not explain the relevance of this cited testimony to the Title VII claim); 3) citation to deposition testimony wherein Plaintiff purports to admit that she was fired because of her positive drug test (Defendants did not explain the relevance of Plaintiff’s subjective belief about her 6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>).) Hooper’s liability was likewise all but
holding that the question whether a cause of action exists is not a question of jurisdiction and therefore may be assumed without being decided holding that evidence not submitted to the district court cannot be part of the record on appeal holding that the determinative question is whether the plaintiff has submitted evidence that a supervisors  animus was a cause of the termination holding that although a reason was provided in the termination letter the without cause termination provision was applicable holding that the subjective intent of the officer is no longer determinative wjhen applying the objective test generally the only determination to be made is whether probable cause existed for the stop in question and that per whren a violation of traffic law provided sufficient probable cause to make the subsequent search and seizure reasonable