Austin v. Wilkinson

Civ.R. 56 motion for summary judgment employment discrimination retaliation adverse employment action Family and Medical Leave Act. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for employment discrimination based on age and disability because plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered an adverse employment action. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim of retaliation as plaintiff failed to state a prima facie claim for retaliation since she could not show a causal connection between any alleged adverse employment action and her FMLA leave. Judgment for defendant.

Magistrate's Decision, Civil Immunity, State Employee, Sexual-Harassment, O.R.C. 9.86, O.R.C. 2743.02(F), Scope of Employment. Magistrate recommended that state employee who sexually harassed an independent contractor was not entitled to civil immunity pursuant to O.R.C. 2743.02(F) and O.R.C. 9.86 as such actions were in furtherance of personal libidinal gratification and outside the scope of employment.

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi