Discrimination Cases

REPORTED OPINION granting in part partial dismissal as to plaintiff's retaliation claim (Count II) and denying in part [32] Motion for Summary Judgment as to plaintiff's EPA claim (Count I). Pursuant to RCFC 54(b), as there is not just reason for delay, the clerk's office is directed to ENTER judgment DISMISSING Count II of plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice. On or before 12/4/2020, the parties are directed to CONFER and FILE a Joint Status Report. The status report shall state whether settlement is a feasible option in this case or whether the parties intend to file any additional dispositive motions. If dispositive motions are to be filed, the status report shall set forth a proposed schedule in that regard. If neither settlement nor dispositive motions are viable, the parties shall set forth a proposed schedule for the exchanges required by Appendix A, paragraph 13 and the filings required by paragraphs 14 through 17. Signed by Judge Patricia E. Campbell-Smith. (TQ) Service on parties made.

DISCRIMINATION — EMPLOYER/EMPLOYEE —RETALITION: The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-employer on plaintiff-employee's claim for race discrimination where the employee failed to demonstrate a prima facie case of race discrimination: the employee did not demonstrate an inference that he had been replaced by a person outside of the protected class where the employee's former job duties were spread out among remaining employees and where the employer filled the former position a year after the former employee's termination. When evaluating the third prong of a prima facie case of employment discrimination, a court must examine the plaintiff's evidence of his or her qualifications for the position independent of the nondiscriminatory reasons asserted by the employer as its reasons for terminating plaintiff's employment. Where the plaintiff-employee did not demonstrate a prima facie case of retaliation, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the employer: the employee's evidence that he was terminated more than two months after he had reported "racial tension" was not sufficient, without more, to establish a causal link between the employee's protected activity and the employer's decision to terminate the employee.

Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS")—R.C. 145.38(B)(1)—R.C. 145.384—Reduction of health-insurance subsidy for a retiree reemployed by a state employer—Equal-protection claim—Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss—Retiree alleged sufficient facts to negate OPERS's argument that subsidy reductions for all OPERS-covered reemployed retirees are rational—OPERS's claim that it would incur additional costs in identifying retirees reemployed by an employer other than a state is not a sufficient rational basis requiring dismissal of retiree's complaint.