Datto v. Ohio State Univ.
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Sheeran
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- summary judgment
Related Laws
Claim Types
Excerpt
Summary Judgment Civ.R 56 Breach of Contract Disability Discrimination Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Reasonable Accommodation Retaliation Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress Unjust Enrichment. Plaintiff was denied admission to defendant's college of medicine because he had previously matriculated at another medical school, not because of a disability or his legal action against his prior medical school. Moreover, plaintiff did not request a reasonable accommodation for admission to make himself otherwise qualified under the ADA. As such, plaintiff was never an enrolled student at defendant's college of medicine and thus no binding contract existed between them. Additionally, defendant's retention of the application fee was not unjust enrichment because the decision to decline admission was exercised with professional judgment. Lastly, declined admission is not actual, or fear of, physical peril as required for negligent infliction of emotional distress. Therefore, the court issued summary judgment in favor of defendant on all claims.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Race discrimination, gender discrimination, R.C. 4112. Civ.R. 53, employment discrimination, reverse discrimination, gender, race. Plaintiff, a white male, brought claims for race and gender discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112. The case proceeded to trial before a magistrate. The magistrate recommended judgment in favor of defendant after finding that plaintiff failed to prove his claims for race and age discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. Plaintiff filed two objections: (1) that the magistrate erred in concluding that plaintiff was not comparable to a black female employee, Bailey-Harris, who was treated more favorably than he was and (2) that the magistrate erred in concluding that plaintiff's termination was pretextual for unlawful discrimination. Regarding the first objection, the court determined that the magistrate did not err in concluding that Bailey-Harris was not comparable to plaintiff since plaintiff held a different position, had different job duties, had more experience, and was paid considerably more than Bailey-Harris. Regarding the second objection, the court found that the magistrate did not err in concluding that plaintiff's supervisor would have made the same decision to terminate plaintiff absent any impermissible bias against him because there was sufficient evidence revealing that plaintiff's supervisor had taken issue with plaintiff's performance and determined that he was not right for the position. Both of plaintiff's objections were overruled, and judgment was rendered in favor of defendant.
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.