Discrimination Cases

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants for employment discrimination pursuant to the Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act (§ 46a-51 et seq.) following the termination of her employment. The plaintiff, who was employed by the defendants as a certified nursing assistant (CNA), alleged that she was approved for unpaid leave by the defendants in order to undergo knee surgery but, while she was recovering from that surgery, she was terminated for failing to report to work and for failing to report her absences on two dates that occurred approximately one week before her surgery. The plaintiff alleged that prior to these absences, she received a phone call from one of the defendants' employees, who told her not to report to work on those two dates, as the defendants were overbooked with CNAs. Since her surgery, the plaintiff has not sought work as a CNA, because she believed she has not yet recovered sufficiently to perform the essential functions required of that position. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment and in support thereof, submitted various documents including the defendants' attendance policy, portions of the plaintiff's sworn depo- sition, disciplinary reports warning the plaintiff about her absenteeism and the certified letter sent to the plaintiff, which terminated her employ- ment. The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary judg- ment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in favor of the defendants as to the plaintiff's discrimination claims, as there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the termination of the plaintiff's employment was pretextual and as to whether, at the time her employment was terminated, the plaintiff was qualified to perform the essential functions of her job, with a reasonable accommodation of a leave of absence: the record was devoid of any evidence regarding how

Grant of summary judgment was proper in employment discrimination case where plaintiff failed to show existence of employment relationship between herself and business where she was assigned to work by contractor.

Court of Claims erred when it granted summary judgment to appellee on appellant's breach of contract claim where the evidence presented by appellant permitted the inference that appellant's academic advisor harbored an age-related bias against appellant and subsequently persuaded another member of appellant's Ph.D. committee to change appellant's grade on the comprehensive written examination from "overall pass" to "fail," as such conduct, if proven at trial, represents a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that appellant's academic advisor and committee member did not actually exercise professional judgment. Even though appellant's dismissal from the Ph.D. program resulted in the loss of his position as a paid teaching assistant ("TA"), appellee was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, as to appellant's statutory age discrimination claim because the allegations of discriminatory conduct related to appellant's status as a student and not the conditions of his employment as a TA. Appellee was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, as to appellant's statutory retaliation claim because the discriminatory practices opposed by appellant related to his status as a student and not the conditions of his employment as a TA. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part cause remanded.

To establish a wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim, the plaintiff must establish the (1) clarity (2) jeopardy (3) causation (4) and overriding justification elements of the requisite legal test. A plaintiff may establish a gender discrimination claim by demonstrating he or she was (1) a member of a protected class (2) was qualified for the job (3) suffered an adverse employment action and (4) was treated differently than a similarly situated non minority coworker who had engaged in the same or similar conduct. To establish a perceived disability discrimination claim, the plaintiff need not demonstrate that he or she has a qualifying disability under Ohio's discrimination law but must demonstrate that he or she was perceived by the employer as being disabled.

Civ.R. 26 discovery compel privileged provisional remedy final appealable order R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) European Union General Data Protection Regulation. - Trial court's order granting motion to compel of potentially privileged or confidential documents was a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02 and thus, subject to immediate appeal. Assuming the European Union's General Data Production Regulation applies to the personnel files of European citizens, the factors to be considered weigh in favor of production. However, the trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the documents requested and redacted those documents deemed irrelevant or confidential.