Skip to main content

State ex rel. Adams v. Ohio State Univ.

Ohio Ct. App.May 7, 2020No. 18AP-1005
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Dorrian, J.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appellate court granted request for writ of mandamus

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Request for writ of mandamus was granted, compelling Ohio State University to perform a required legal duty.

Excerpt

Request for writ of mandamus granted.

What This Ruling Means

**Court Orders Ohio State University to Follow Legal Requirements** A worker named Adams brought a case against Ohio State University because the university failed to perform a legal duty it was required to do. The specific details of what duty the university neglected aren't provided, but Adams asked the court to issue a "writ of mandamus" - essentially a court order forcing the university to do what it was legally supposed to do. The court sided with Adams and granted the request. This means the court agreed that Ohio State University had a legal obligation it wasn't meeting and ordered the university to fulfill that duty. The court did not award any money damages in this case. This ruling matters for workers because it shows that courts can force employers - even large institutions like state universities - to follow their legal obligations. When an employer fails to do something the law requires them to do, employees have the right to ask courts to step in and compel compliance. Workers don't always need to seek money damages; sometimes the most important remedy is simply getting the employer to do what they're supposed to do under the law.

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

Similar Rulings

Abdullah
OHIOCTCLDec 2025

Civ.R. 56, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. Plaintiff failed to produce a genuine issue as to any material fact that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin, or that he was constructively discharged. The alleged hostile actions and commentary made by other employees were not racially based and did not materially disrupt plaintiff's work. As plaintiff's experiences amounted to no more than ordinary tribulations of the workplace, plaintiff's hostile work environment claims failed. For the same reasons, plaintiff failed to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 56.

Defendant Win
Leach
Ohio Ct. App.Dec 2024

The Court of Claims did not err in granting Ohio State University's ("OSU") motion for summary judgment on the employment discrimination claim or in dismissing the breach of contract claim based on a collective bargaining agreement for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Defendant Win
Khatri
Unknown CourtJan 2024

Summary Judgment, Qualified Immunity, Civ.R. 56(C), 28 U.S.C. 1367(d), Civil Conspiracy, Wrongful Termination. Defendant established that tolling statues did not apply to Plaintiff's claims for civil conspiracy and wrongful termination in violation of public policy as the state of Ohio has consented to be sued in only one forum – the Court of Claims. Additionally, the Court held that the savings statute did not apply to Plaintiff's third attempt at filing the same claims. The remainder of Plaintiff's claims for conversion, intellectual theft, unjust enrichment, and lost opportunities were held to be untimely filed. Plaintiff's initial cause of action originated more than four years prior to the filing of this case. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Defendant Win
Papp v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2026
Defendant Win
Yormick v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.
Ohio Ct. App.May 2026
Plaintiff Win

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.