Shine v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Van Schoyck
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- Magistrate's decision recommending denial of civil immunity to state employee
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Magistrate found that a state employee who sexually harassed an independent contractor was not entitled to civil immunity under Ohio law because the sexual harassment was motivated by personal gratification and fell outside the scope of employment.
Excerpt
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.
Similar Rulings
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.
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. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.