Greater Dayton Regional Transit Authority

The trial court erred by entering summary judgment under Civ.R. 56 on appellant's claim of sex discrimination because the evidence did not eliminate any genuine issue of material fact regarding the comparability of three male co-workers who were allegedly treated more favorably by appellee, or regarding the validity of appellee's purportedly nondiscriminatory reasons for its comparatively less favorable treatment of appellant. Regarding appellant's claim of disability discrimination, however, the trial court did not err by entering judgment under Civ.R. 56. Appellant, who alleges that appellee terminated her employment because she was disabled, failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact with respect to her alleged inability to perform the essential functions of her position at the time of her termination. In addition, the trial court did not err by entering summary judgment on appellant's claim for retaliation, because appellant failed to present evidence sufficient to create any genuine issue of material fact with respect to the alleged causal connection between her engaging in protected activity and appellee's termination of her employment. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.

The trial court did not err in confirming an arbitration award entered in favor of a labor union. The award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement because it did not conflict with the agreement's express terms and was rationally supported by the agreement. The parties agreed to assign a specific task to a particular job classification, and there was also a past practice of having only employees in that job classification perform the task. This past practice was unequivocal, was clearly enunciated, and was followed for a reasonable period of time as a fixed and established practice accepted by both parties. It, therefore, was binding on the parties. Even if the past practice had not been binding, the collective bargaining agreement specifically required past practices or precedent to be considered in interpreting the agreement. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err in confirming and refusing to vacate an arbitration award in favor of union and against transit authority with regard to transit authority's practice of contracting outside entities to provide a portion of transportation services mandated for individuals with disabilities. The arbitrator did not exceed his authority by interpreting the applicable collective bargaining agreement as prohibiting transit authority from subcontracting driving duties normally performed by union bus operators. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion to vacate an arbitration award or by granting appellee's application to confirm the award. The arbitrator's interpretation of procedural rules, interpretation of the parties' collective bargaining agreement, and interpretation of Ohio law were all within the scope of his powers. Judgment affirmed.