Skip to main content

Tatarunas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co.

Ohio Ct. App.September 18, 2025No. 114440
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Sheehan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
summary judgment

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationWrongful TerminationBreach of Contract

Excerpt

Summary judgment; Civ.R. 56(C); R.C. 4112.02; reverse race discrimination; reverse sex discrimination; similarly situated employees; legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; intentional infliction of emotional distress; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; Ohio Const., art. I, § 16; breach of contract. The plaintiff-appellant, a white male, was employed by the defendant-appellee for approximately eight years. While employed, appellant was disciplined multiple times during his tenure. Appellant sued appellee, raising a number of claims. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee with respect to appellant's claims concerning reverse race discrimination, reverse sex discrimination, intentional infliction of emotional distress, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, and breach of contract. Appellant failed to meet his burden in showing a prima facie case of race discrimination. Appellant did, however, present a prima facie case of sex discrimination. But even though appellant presented a prima facie case of reverse sex discrimination, appellee present a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for appellant's termination. Appellant failed to present evidence demonstrating that appellee's legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was pretextual. Appellee had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and legally justifiable reason to terminate appellant, and therefore appellant failed to demonstrate that appellee's termination of his employment was "extreme and outrageous." Appellant also failed to present any evidence that he suffered "severe and debilitating injury" as a result of his termination. He failed to present any expert opinion or lay person testimony concerning any significant changes in his emotional or habitual make-up. The only evidence he presented with respect to his "injury" is only his own claims. As such, appellant failed to support his prima facie case for intentional infliction of emotional distress. With respect to appellant'

What This Ruling Means

**Tatarunas v. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. - What Workers Need to Know** **What Happened:** A white male employee sued Progressive Insurance after being fired from his job of eight years. He claimed the company discriminated against him because of his race and gender (called "reverse discrimination"), wrongfully terminated him, caused him severe emotional distress, and broke his employment contract. The employee had been disciplined several times during his employment before being let go. **What the Court Decided:** The court issued a mixed ruling, meaning the employee won some claims but lost others. The court granted "summary judgment" on certain issues, which means it decided some parts of the case without a full trial. However, the ruling doesn't specify which claims succeeded or failed. **Why This Matters for Workers:** This case shows that discrimination claims can go both ways - employees from any background can potentially file discrimination lawsuits if they believe they were treated unfairly because of their race or gender. However, workers should know that having a history of workplace discipline can complicate discrimination cases. The mixed outcome also demonstrates that employment lawsuits often involve multiple legal issues, and courts may rule differently on each claim rather than simply winning or losing everything.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.