McGinty v. Ohio State Univ.

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.

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.

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.

Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; University of Toledo Athletic Department; athletics; negligent misrepresentation; promissory estoppel; negligence; discretionary immunity. In an action where plaintiff was removed from University of Toledo's women's soccer team, the court found that defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity for the decision to remove plaintiff from the team. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant supplied false information to plaintiff that the document plaintiff signed was a National Letter of Intent, and therefore, plaintiff failed to satisfy all the elements of the claim. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel because the court found that plaintiff's relationship with University of Toledo was contractual in nature, and therefore, the claim failed as a matter of law. Defendant was further entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for negligence as the court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for the claim since plaintiff pointed to no facts or supportive law that would allow the court to conclude that a duty of care existed to provide a safe team environment free from abuse, harassment, ridicule, embarrassment, and hostility. Judgment for defendant.