Discrimination Cases

The plaintiff, a minor child diagnosed with Down syndrome and without functional speech who was enrolled in the Hebron public school system, brought an action seeking damages from the defendants, the town of Hebron, the Board of Education, and eight of the board's employees, for, inter alia, negligence per se and statutory (§§ 46a-58 and 46a-75) discrimination. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants discriminated against him based on his disabilities by segregating him from students without disabilities and breached their duties to educate him in the least restrictive environment. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint on the ground that the plaintiff sought relief for the defendants' failure to provide special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.), thus triggering an administrative exhaustion requirement contained in that act and in the applicable state statutory (§ 10-76a et seq.) scheme that implements the federal act, thereby depriving the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. The defendants specifically contended that, although the plaintiff did not allege a violation of the federal act, he sought relief for the denial of a free appropriate public education under the federal act and that, regardless of whether the complaint alleged a violation of the federal act, the federal act and state law (§ 10-76h) mandated exhaustion of administrative remedies insofar as the crux of the complaint was the alleged denial of a free appropriate public educa- tion. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss and rendered judgment thereon, concluding that the plaintiff was required to exhaust his admin- istrative remedies but had failed to do so. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not allege a denial of a free appropriate public education and sought monetary relief, a remedy t

Trial court properly granted summary judgment to plaintiff's former employer where plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, retaliation, and violation of the Family Medical Leave Act.

Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12 Civ.R. 8 Civ.R. 10 pro se litigant false imprisonment confinement force threat of force breach of contract constitutional deprivation state actor discrimination. Appellant failed to plead actionable claims for false imprisonment, breach of contract, deprivation of constitutional rights, or discrimination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Summary judgment discrimination limitations contractual limitations shortened employment application enforceable reasonable employment-related claims arguments first time appeal. Affirmed the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment on employment-related claims that were untimely filed and barred by a six-month limitations period contained in appellant's employment application. The provision was found reasonable and enforceable under Ohio law. Some of the arguments were not addressed because a party who does not raise an issue in the trial court may not ordinarily raise that issue for the first time on appeal.