Discrimination Cases

The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for "regarded as" disability discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.02(A) and aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.02(J), but the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for "actual" disability discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.02(A), failing to accommodate plaintiff's alleged disability, or failing to engage in the interactive process to determine a reasonable accommodation for plaintiff's alleged disability. Furthermore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in dealing with the parties' discovery disputes.

CIVIL - summary judgment deposition testimony Civ.R. 56 factual testimony/legal conclusions genuine issues of material fact workers' compensation retaliation R.C. 4123.90 disability discrimination R.C. 4112.02 Ohio public policy wrongful termination jeopardy, clarity and causation workplace safety Article II, Sections 34 and 35 of the Ohio Constitution R.C. 4101.11 and .12 R.C. 4121.13(A) and .17(A) OSHA 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) and (2)

Directed verdict Civ.R. 50 de novo review age discrimination prima facie case direct evidence statements by employer indirect evidence reasonable inference reduction in force business considerations breach of contract renewal of contract assignment meeting of the minds essential terms promissory estoppel damages. The trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict on all of appellant's claims. Appellant failed to present direct or indirect evidence of his age-discrimination claim. Further, appellant did not demonstrate a prima facie case of breach of contract because there was no meeting of the minds, and the alleged contract lacked essential terms. Finally, appellant did not present evidence of damages in support of his promissory-estoppel claim.

Retaliation discrimination Civ.R. 53 objections to magistrate's decision. Plaintiffs, employees of the Ohio State Racing Commission (OSRC), objected to the magistrate's decision recommending judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs alleged OSRC retaliated against them for engaging in the protected activity of filing a discrimination complaint with the Ohio Department of Administrative Services Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). After a review of the magistrate's decision and the evidence submitted, the court found that the retaliatory actions alleged by plaintiffs were insufficient to dissuade an employee from alleging discrimination. Further, the court found that these actions were supported by legitimate business purposes. Accordingly, the court overruled plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate's decision and rendered judgment for defendant.