Lloyd v. 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.