Discrimination Cases

A bookkeeper for two companies was terminated after his employers learned that he had a conviction for money laundering and mail fraud arising out of his previous employment. The employee filed suit, alleging that he was terminated because of his age, in violation of the Tennessee Human Rights Act, and his disability, in violation of the Tennessee Disability Act. The employers moved for summary judgment, asserting that the employee was terminated for poor performance and for not disclosing the prior conviction, that these grounds constituted legitimate, nondiscriminatory grounds for termination, and that the employee could not demonstrate that these grounds were a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment to the employers, and the employee appeals. Finding that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the asserted reasons for Plaintiff's termination are pretextual, we reverse the judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.

This is an appeal from the trial court's dismissal of the pro se plaintiff's discrimination action against Tennessee State University and certain administrators. The court determined that the plaintiff had requested relief beyond its authority to award and granted the motion to dismiss in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appeals. We affirm.

disability discrimination claim Ohio's Civil Rights Act trial court affirmed decision of the Ohio Civil Rights Commission finding discrimination Ohio Adm.Code 4112-5-08(E)(1) employee was otherwise qualified person capable of safely and substantially performing the essential functions employer failed to grant employee a reasonable accommodation employee adequately mitigated his damages

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits 29 and 36 into evidence during trial because the probative value of the exhibits substantially outweighed any danger of any prejudice to the appellants. The jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff with respect to his claims for breach of contract, discrimination, and retaliation were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it overruled the appellants' motions for directed verdicts and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellants' untimely motion for leave to amend their answer to include the after-acquired evidence defense. Judgment affirmed.

summary judgment - sex discrimination - gender discrimination - sexual harassment - privacy interest - R.C. 4112.02(A) - retaliatory discrimination - circumstantial evidence - R.C. 4112.02(I) - aiding and abetting to commit discrimination - R.C. 4112.02(J)

This case involves the dismissal of a Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA) action filed by Jamal Watson against the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) and Pellissippi State Community College (PSCC) (collectively the defendants). PSCC offered Watson a fulltime, tenure-track position, but subsequently rescinded the offer. Watson filed a THRA case in the Circuit Court for Knox County (the trial court) against the defendants alleging race discrimination. He later filed a notice of claim for breach of contract in the Tennessee Claims Commission against the same entities. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss in the trial court alleging that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants asserted that Watson waived his cause of action against "any state officer or employee," pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(b), by filing a claim against the state in the Tennessee Claims Commission. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss. Watson appeals. We reverse.

Where the evidence and circumstances showed that company-wide demographic statistics were likely to prove relevant to a disparate impact claim (either to aid or damage the claim), such statistics were properly discoverable and summary judgment granted against claimants denied their discovery is reversed.

In the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Miami Valley Hospital on Noelle Diller's claims of sexual harassment (hostile environment) and retaliation. While the trial court abused its discretion in striking Exhibits B, C, and D, attached to Diller's memorandum in opposition to MVH's motion for summary judgment, since the Exhibits were properly authenticated business records, the documents were either not in dispute, were otherwise part of the record, or were not relevant to the summary judgment decision, and the error was harmless. Judgment affirmed.