Discrimination Cases

Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on appellant's breach of contract claim as related to the termination of her administrative positions. However, trial court erred in granting summary judgment on appellant's breach of contract claim related to the cancellation of appellant's endowed professorship where appellee failed to demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Trial court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction over constitutional due process claim. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on discrimination claim because appellant failed to meet her burden of demonstrating prima facie case and pretext. Trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on retaliation claim because appellant failed to demonstrate prima facie case.

A 62-year-old former employee of the Macon County School System sued the Board of Education on the grounds of age discrimination and retaliation under the Tennessee Human Rights Act. She alleged that her supervisor, the school principal, made age related discriminatory remarks and demoted her after she complained about a co worker's repeated, sexually explicit comments. In its answer, the Board of Education contended that the re-assignment was a lateral transfer and was justified by nondiscriminatory reasons. The trial court summarily dismissed the complaint finding, inter alia, that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination or retaliation, and that the Board produced undisputed evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for transferring Plaintiff. We respectfully disagree, having concluded that Plaintiff identified and produced evidence to establish a prima facie case for both claims and to create a genuine issue of fact concerning whether the Board's stated reasons are pretexts for discriminatory or retaliatory animus. For these reasons, the Board was not entitled to summary judgment. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

CIVIL - gender discrimination motion for summary judgment Civ.R. 12(B)(1) lack of subject-matter jurisdiction collective bargaining agreement grievance procedure requires final, binding arbitration R.C. 4117.10(A) abuse of discretion failure to consider evidence beyond court's jurisdiction prima facie case failure to establish replacement by male or that a similarly situated male with same deficiencies was treated more favorable failure to compel no transcript of conference.

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion to amend her complaint, to include facts regarding her PTSD diagnosis and claims of racial and disability discrimination, eight months after she filed her administrative appeal from the termination of her teaching contract. The trial court did not consider Appellant's prior discipline at another school when determining that she was subject to termination, and Appellant was not denied due process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that Appellant's failure to enter third quarter final grades was good and just cause for termination. Judgment affirmed.

This is a retaliatory discharge claim brought by an employee against his employer, alleging he was fired in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits. The trial court ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the employee had made a prima facie showing that his termination was in retaliation for his claim for workers' compensation benefits. The trial court also found that the employee established the employer's stated non-discriminatory reason was pretext. Because the record does not reflect that the trial court exercised its own independent judgment, we vacate and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Race discrimination summary judgment R.C. 4112.02(A) Civ.R. 56(C) Ohio Civil Rights Act discriminatory animus direct evidence indirect evidence prima facie case. The trial court did not err when it granted the defendant's summary judgment motion on the plaintiff's race discrimination claim because the plaintiff failed to meet his burden in establishing a prima facie case of race discrimination through direct or indirect evidence. Accordingly, no genuine issues of material fact remained, and the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Disability discrimination perceived prima facie transitory and minor. A plaintiff claiming disability discrimination cannot make out a prima facie case of being perceived as disabled if the plaintiff's injuries are transitory and minor — defined under federal law as an impairment with an actual or expected duration of six months or less. Although plaintiff-employee had been placed on disability leave after breaking bones in both hands, her injuries healed and she returned to work in six weeks. The court did not err by directing a verdict in favor the defendant-employer because the plaintiff's injuries were thus transitory and minor, excluding her from a "perceived as" disabled discrimination claim.

Appellant failed to provide clear and convincing evidence that he was denied parole based on impermissible discrimination.