Ohio State University

Civ.R. 56, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. Plaintiff failed to produce a genuine issue as to any material fact that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin, or that he was constructively discharged. The alleged hostile actions and commentary made by other employees were not racially based and did not materially disrupt plaintiff's work. As plaintiff's experiences amounted to no more than ordinary tribulations of the workplace, plaintiff's hostile work environment claims failed. For the same reasons, plaintiff failed to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 56.

The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio State University's ("OSU") motion for summary judgment on the employment discrimination claim or in dismissing the breach of contract claim based on a collective bargaining agreement for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Summary Judgment, Qualified Immunity, Civ.R. 56(C), 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), Civil Conspiracy, Wrongful Termination. Defendant established that tolling statues did not apply to Plaintiff's claims for civil conspiracy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy as the state of Ohio has consented to be sued in only one forum – the Court of Claims. Additionally, the Court held that the savings statute did not apply to Plaintiff's third attempt at filing the same claims. The remainder of Plaintiff's claims for conversion, intellectual theft, unjust enrichment, and lost opportunities were held to be untimely filed. Plaintiff's initial cause of action originated more than four years prior to the filing of this case. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

As claimant quit her former position of employment for reasons unrelated to her workplace injury she was ineligible for temporary total disability compensation after the date of her resignation. The relator's limited objection is sustained as magistrate's decision does not contain a clear and definitive determination as to the date at issue. Respondents' objections overruled relator's limited objection sustained writ granted.

Request for writ of mandamus granted.

Employment discrimination reverse race discrimination reverse sex discrimination magistrate Civ.R. 53. Plaintiff, a former employee of defendant, brought an action for reverse race and reverse sex discrimination, asserting that he was asked to resign from his position as a result of discrimination. Defendant asserts that plaintiff was not asked to resign because of discrimination but because he didn't share the vision for the department and was no longer meeting expectations. The court found that plaintiff was unable to meet the elements for direct proof of discrimination, specifically relating to the elements of proximity and relation to decision making. The court also found that plaintiff was unable to prove a prima facie case using indirect evidence for reverse race discrimination because he was replaced by a person in the majority race and there were no comparable employees in his department. The court found that plaintiff proved a prima facie case for reverse sex discrimination using indirect proof. However, plaintiff did not prevail on his claim because defendant was able to prove that he was not meeting the expectations of his position. Accordingly, the magistrate found in favor of the defendant.

public record court of claims R.C. 2743.75 R.C. 149.43 149.43(A)(2) investigatory uncharged suspect initial incident report moot reasonable period of time capable of repetition evading review naming labeling aggrieved person. Overview: Requester sought all police reports naming or involving listed university students and respondent had provided some records. Respondent redacted the name of one student, a suspect in the investigation of an alleged rape, from a report created by the first responding officer. Respondent asserted that the document was not an initial incident report - a type of law enforcement record to which the "uncharged suspect" exception asserted by respondent did not apply – but merely an "unapproved draft" in the investigation file. During litigation, respondent disclosed the suspect's name to the requester. The special master found that respondent's disclosure rendered the claim for production moot, but that the issue of whether production had been timely remained for determination. The special master further found that respondent's characterization of its police records involved important issues capable of repetition yet evading review. The special master found that the record underlying the dispute was an initial incident report compiled as such pursuant to the university police department's general orders and records management system. The special master recommended the court grant respondent's motion to dismiss the claim for production as moot, and further recommended the court find that respondent had failed to provide the requested report within a reasonable period of time.

Contract breach damages. Plaintiff was formerly employed as a professor by defendant, a state university. Plaintiff was denied tenure by defendant. The denial triggered a final year of employment, after which plaintiff's employment was terminated. Plaintiff filed this action for breach of contract. The court found that defendant breached its employment contract with plaintiff by conducting an improper tenure review. The court ordered defendant to conduct a proper tenure review. After the proper tenure review also resulted in the denial of tenure, plaintiff was awarded damages for the period of time between the end of her employment and the completion of the proper tenure review. The parties stipulated to the amount of damages.

Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination case on the basis of racial discrimination as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation against The Ohio State University. Plaintiff failed to file within the two year statute of limitation and the longer federal time period in this case is not applicable. Judgment affirmed.

The Unemployment Compensation Review Commission did not err.

Public records—Trade secrets—Mandamus sought to compel Ohio State University to make available for inspection all records concerning or relating to university's acquisition of Park Medical Center, a private Columbus hospital—Writ granted in part and denied in part.