MetroHealth System

Directed verdict; wage discrimination; Ohio's Equal Pay Act; R.C. 4111.17; age discrimination; disparate treatment; disparate impact; prima facie case; indirect evidence; R.C. 4112.02; de novo. Judgment affirmed. The trial court's grant of appellee's motion for directed verdict on appellant's wage- and age-discrimination claims was proper. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the employee wage compensation plan adopted by appellee is discriminatory and violates R.C. 4111.17 and 4112.02. When construing the facts most strongly in appellant's favor, we find that appellant did not meet his burden to establish the elements of his wage-discrimination claim or his age-discrimination claim. Appellant admitted that all of the vascular interventional radiologists with the same academic rank were paid the same base salary, failed to present evidence of adverse employment actions by appellee, and failed to present a statistically relevant analysis to prove that appellee's wage compensation plan caused an adverse impact on employees over 40.

Preliminary injunction modification noncompete agreement doctor specialized abuse of discretion likelihood of success on the merits irreparable injury unjustifiable harm to third parties public interest reasonable legitimate business interest undue hardship injury to the public. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the noncompete agreement between appellant and appellee. Appellant did not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of its breach-of-contract claim against the appellee with the noncompete agreement as written, however it did have a substantial likelihood of success under the trial court's modified noncompete agreement. As modified by the court, the noncompete agreement protected appellant's legitimate business interests, did not impose and undue burden on the appellee, and did not injure the public. Further, the modified noncompete agreement would not cause the appellant to suffer irreparable injury. Finally, third parties would be harmed, and the public interest would not be served by enforcing the noncompete agreement as written by appellant. Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it modified the noncompete agreement between the parties.