No specific laws identified for this ruling.
The Ohio Court of Appeals denied relator's request for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel SERB to find probable cause that her union committed an unfair labor practice by failing to pursue arbitration of her termination grievance.
Relator's request for a writ of mandamus is denied as relator has not established a clear legal right to have her State Employment Relation's Board issue a probable cause finding on her unfair labor practice charge or a clear legal duty on the part of SERB to do so. Writ denied.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
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.
Common Pleas Court properly affirmed order of Ohio State Personnel Board of Review modifying discipline imposed on employee of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.
Judgment affirmed. ODRC presented reliable, probative, and substantial evidence demonstrating that appellant violated Rule 7 of the performance track of ODRC's standards of employee conduct when she failed to follow a written directive from her superior. Because appellant had previously entered into a last chance agreement with ODRC, wherein she agreed that any violation of the performance track of ODRC's standards of employee conduct would result in her termination from employment, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming SPBR's order affirming ODRC's order removing appellant from her employment with ODRC. The trial court acknowledged that, pursuant to R.C. 124.34(B), SPBR's review was limited to determining whether appellant had violated the last change agreement.
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.