Spitulski v. Bd. of Educ. of the Toledo City Sch. Dist.

CBA provision prohibited union from bringing new grievances similar to previously-denied grievance, but did not prohibit arbitration of already-pending grievance that was purportedly similar. In absence of "express exclusion," "explicit language," or "forceful evidence" from bargaining history indicating intent to reserve issue for trial court, determination of whether two grievances are "similar" was matter for arbitrator, not trial court.

School board employees were not entitled to statutory immunity on age discrimination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims because genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether they acted with malice, in bad faith, wantonly, or recklessly in pursuing disciplinary proceedings against appellee. Employees were entitled to immunity as to retaliation claims where court identified no conduct attributable to them in denying summary judgment on the merits of the claim.