Skip to main content

Cephas v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.

OHIOCTCLJanuary 28, 2026No. 2024-00825JD

Case Details

Judge(s)
Peterson
Status
Published

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

Inmate Assault, Rape, Negligence, Damages, Stipulation. Defendant stipulated that its employees breached their duty of care towards plaintiff after eight inmates entered plaintiff's cell, then assaulted and raped plaintiff for approximately 90 minutes before staff intervention. A trial was held on the issue of damages. The magistrate found that the testimony of plaintiff's treating physician, who also served as defendant's medical expert, was credible in that plaintiff's hip injuries were consistent with normal wear and tear, not an acute injury from the attack. The magistrate further found that plaintiff had proven pain and suffering damages from the attack and recommended an award of $175,000.00 in compensatory damages.

Similar Rulings

Bleise
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2025

The Court of Claims of Ohio did not err in granting appellee's Civ.R. 12(B)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The collective bargaining agreement between the parties provides for final and binding arbitration, and all three of appellant's claims relate to employment matters covered by the collective bargaining agreement. Thus, pursuant to R.C. 4117.10(A), arbitration was appellant's exclusive remedy, and the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to hear her claims. Judgment affirmed.

Unknown
Dove
Unknown CourtApr 2023

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.

Plaintiff Win
Drummond
Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2022

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.

Mixed Result
McKinley
OHIOCTCLFeb 2026

Negligence; emergency call; public duty; proximate cause. Plaintiff was driving a semi-trailer while stopped at a traffic light. Defendant's employee, a state trooper, negligently drove his vehicle into plaintiff's trailer. The evidence did not support defendant's argument that the trooper was on an emergency call at the time of the incident. The public duty rule also did not apply in this situation. However, plaintiff failed to prove that the minor traffic incident was the proximate cause of his personal injury and request for damages. Judgment for defendant.

Unknown
Watson
OHIOCTCLDec 2025

Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; race discrimination; age discrimination; hostile work environment; retaliation. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant unlawfully discriminated against her based on race and age because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and the evidence presented showed that defendant terminated plaintiff's employment for a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for hostile work environment because none of the evidence showed that the alleged harassment that plaintiff experienced was based upon race or age. Finally, defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for retaliation because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation as plaintiff could not show a causal connection between her protected activity and the termination of her employment. Judgment for defendant.

Unknown

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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.