Age Discrimination Cases

Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; race discrimination; age discrimination; hostile work environment; retaliation. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant unlawfully discriminated against her based on race and age because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and the evidence presented showed that defendant terminated plaintiff's employment for a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for hostile work environment because none of the evidence showed that the alleged harassment that plaintiff experienced was based upon race or age. Finally, defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for retaliation because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation as plaintiff could not show a causal connection between her protected activity and the termination of her employment. Judgment for defendant.

Directed verdict; wage discrimination; Ohio's Equal Pay Act; R.C. 4111.17; age discrimination; disparate treatment; disparate impact; prima facie case; indirect evidence; R.C. 4112.02; de novo. Judgment affirmed. The trial court's grant of appellee's motion for directed verdict on appellant's wage- and age-discrimination claims was proper. Appellant failed to demonstrate that the employee wage compensation plan adopted by appellee is discriminatory and violates R.C. 4111.17 and 4112.02. When construing the facts most strongly in appellant's favor, we find that appellant did not meet his burden to establish the elements of his wage-discrimination claim or his age-discrimination claim. Appellant admitted that all of the vascular interventional radiologists with the same academic rank were paid the same base salary, failed to present evidence of adverse employment actions by appellee, and failed to present a statistically relevant analysis to prove that appellee's wage compensation plan caused an adverse impact on employees over 40.

Motion for Summary Judgment, Employment, Age Discrimination, Sex Discrimination. No genuine issues as to any material fact existed regarding plaintiff's claims for age or sex discrimination. Defendant presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for plaintiff's termination. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case by presenting facts which demonstrated that defendant's reasoning for termination of plaintiff's employment was pretextual. Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction of age discrimination claim against school board where employee elected to file OCRC charge tortious violation of rights not recognized claim under Ohio law employee failed to submit proper evidence to support disability discrimination claim employee failed to make prima facie case of retaliation conduct supporting IIED claim not sufficiently extreme and outrageous no abuse of discretion in affirming termination under R.C. 3319.16.