Skip to main content

Johnson-Newberry v. Cuyahoga Cty. Child & Family Servs.

Ohio Ct. App.September 12, 2019No. 107424Cited 7 times
Mixed ResultCuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Sheehan
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationRetaliationHarassment

Outcome

The trial court's order denying defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings was affirmed, allowing the plaintiff's claims against the supervisor for aiding and abetting discrimination to proceed. The order granting leave to amend the complaint was dismissed from appeal as not final and appealable.

Excerpt

Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12(C) discrimination R.C. 4112.02(A) R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) R.C. 4112.02(J) individual liability aid and abet R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) motion to amend complaint change name final appealable order. The trial court's order granting plaintiff-appellee's motion to amend her complaint where the plaintiff-appellee moved to change the name of the party defendant where plaintiff-appellee demonstrated she mistakenly omitted a portion of the party's name on the complaint is not a final appealable order. We therefore have no jurisdiction to review the second assignment of error. The trial court properly denied the supervisor's Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. R.C. 4112.02(J) expressly imposes liability on a political subdivision employee so as to trigger the immunity exception outlined in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c).

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker at Cuyahoga County's child and family services department sued her employer and supervisor, claiming she faced discrimination, harassment, and retaliation on the job. The county and supervisor asked the court to throw out the case before trial, arguing the worker's claims weren't legally valid. The worker also needed to fix a mistake in her paperwork where she had gotten part of the defendant's name wrong. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio appeals court refused to dismiss the case, allowing it to move forward to trial. Importantly, the court said the worker could sue her individual supervisor personally for "aiding and abetting" discrimination - meaning helping or encouraging discriminatory behavior. The court also allowed the worker to correct the name error in her lawsuit paperwork. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling is significant because it confirms that workers can potentially sue their individual supervisors personally, not just their employers, when supervisors actively participate in discrimination. This means supervisors could be held financially responsible for their own discriminatory actions. However, workers should know that successfully proving such claims still requires strong evidence, and this was just a procedural victory allowing the case to continue.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.