Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr

Objections Civ.R. 53(D) Disability Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation Assault Battery Ratification. After trial, plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate's decision. The court overruled plaintiff's objections on her disability discrimination claims, finding that plaintiff's requests for transfer to two other facilities were not reasonable accommodations. However, the court sustained plaintiff's objection on her assault and battery claims, finding defendant ratified its employee's assault and battery upon plaintiff. Therefore, the court modified the magistrate's decision, rendered judgment in favor of plaintiff on her assault and battery claims, and referred the case to the magistrate for a determination of damages on the assault and battery claims.

Court of Claims did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of employer on race and age discrimination claims. Appellant failed to demonstrate that employer's proffered reason for not hiring her was pretext for race or age discrimination. Appellant was not a plainly superior candidate for the position, given the candidates' relative qualifications, and she failed to demonstrate other probative evidence of discrimination. Judgment affirmed.

Civ.R. 56, summary judgment, employment discrimination, R.C. 4112. Plaintiff, a 58-year-old, African American, female employee of defendant, filed an action asserting that defendant unlawfully discriminated against her based upon her race and age when it failed to promote her and, instead, hired a 33-year-old, white female into the desired position. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff could not prove her claim because she provided no evidence to show that defendant's nondiscriminatory reason for selecting the alternative candidate was pretext for discrimination. The court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant after finding that there was no genuine dispute of material fact as to the selected individual's qualifications for the position and plaintiff did not provide evidence sufficient to reasonably doubt defendant's nondiscriminatory explanation for hiring the alternative candidate instead of plaintiff.

Negligence battery excessive force magistrate Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant for an incident where defendant's employee used force against plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed monetary damages for alleged back and neck injuries. Based on video footage and testimony at trial, the magistrate determined that defendant's employee used minimal force to stop a perceived threat from plaintiff by holding him to the ground for a short period of time. The magistrate found that plaintiff failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended judgment in favor of the defendant.

Negligence battery excessive force fraud summary judgment Civ.R. 56(B). Plaintiff, an inmate, filed a complaint against defendant for an incident where defendant's employee used force against plaintiff. Plaintiff claimed monetary damages for battery, negligence, and fraud. Plaintiff claims he was not given medical care following the use of force. Based on an undisputed affidavit from an employee of defendant, the court found that the degree of force used was justified and privileged and satisfied the duty of reasonable care. Further, the employee averred that plaintiff was seen by medical staff following the incident. Plaintiff did not provide evidence to satisfy the elements of fraud. Therefore, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Court of Claims did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction ("DRC") as to inmate's defamation claim. Though the oral defamatory statements allegedly made by a DRC employee directly accused appellant of being a troublemaker, know-it-all, and poor dog handler, because those statements did not import an indictable criminal offense involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment, impute some loathsome or contagious disease which would exclude appellant from society, or tend to injure appellant in his trade or occupation, appellant's failure to plead and produce evidence of special damages was fatal to his slander claim. Similarly, because the written statement made by a DRC employee disparaged appellant's reputation as a model inmate and accused him of being a poor dog handler only by inference, appellant's failure to either plead or produce evidence of special damages entitled DRC to judgment, as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed.

Civ.R. 56 negligence vicarious liability agency relationship independent contractor inmate. Plaintiff, an inmate under the custody and control of the defendant, filed an action asserting that defendant was liable for the actions of CoreCivic America Corporation (CoreCivic) and Diamond Pharmacy Services one or both of which were allegedly negligent in the distribution of Plaintiff's prescription medication at Northeastern Ohio Correctional Center. Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, to which Plaintiff did not reply, asserting that Defendant cannot be liable for any alleged negligence of CoreCivic or Diamond Pharmacy Services because they are independent contractors rather than agents of Defendant. After reviewing the Plaintiff's complaint with relevant attachments and the Defendant's motion and attached affidavit, the Court found that there is no dispute that CoreCivic is an independent contractor and not an agent of Defendant. Accordingly, Defendant cannot be held liable for the negligence of independent contractors and the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

Open and obvious doctrine did not apply to inmate's use of a device to control window opening. Case remanded for a determination as to comparative negligence.