McClure v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Sadler
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Excerpt
Court of Claims did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Correction ("DRC") as to inmate's defamation claim. Though the oral defamatory statements allegedly made by a DRC employee directly accused appellant of being a troublemaker, know-it-all, and poor dog handler, because those statements did not import an indictable criminal offense involving moral turpitude or infamous punishment, impute some loathsome or contagious disease which would exclude appellant from society, or tend to injure appellant in his trade or occupation, appellant's failure to plead and produce evidence of special damages was fatal to his slander claim. Similarly, because the written statement made by a DRC employee disparaged appellant's reputation as a model inmate and accused him of being a poor dog handler only by inference, appellant's failure to either plead or produce evidence of special damages entitled DRC to judgment, as a matter of law. Judgment affirmed.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
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.
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.