Discrimination Cases

A jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder, second degree kidnapping, and first degree sexual assault. On appeal, defendant contended that the trial court erred in denying his challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986), when the prosecutor removed R.P., a prospective Hispanic juror, from the venire. When a party raises a Batson challenge, the trial court must conduct a three-step analysis to assess the claim of racial discrimination. First, the opponent of the peremptory strike must allege a prima facie case showing that the striking party struck the prospective juror on the basis of race. Next, the burden shifts to the striking party to provide a race-neutral explanation for excusing the prospective juror. The opponent is then given the opportunity to rebut the striking party's explanation. Here, the prosecutor claimed concern with R.P.'s views that the criminal justice system disproportionately affects people of color and those with mental disabilities. In addressing the Batson challenge, the trial court did not explicitly evaluate the prosecutor's proffered reasons for striking R.P. Instead, the court sua sponte offered two race-neutral reasons to justify striking R.P. The court also failed to recognize that the record refuted most of the prosecutor's proffered excuses. Thus, the trial court erred in denying the Batson challenge. The judgment of conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

Racial discrimination disparate treatment disparate impact statistical evidence pretext. The trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's disparate-treatment-discrimination claim where the undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff was replaced by an individual from the same class, and plaintiff failed to show that a similarly situated comparator from a nonprotected class was treated more favorably. Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on plaintiff's disparate-impact-discrimination claim where plaintiff failed to present significant statistical evidence of disparate effects caused by the adverse-employment action.

CIVIL-DISMISSAL-FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM-FAIR HOUSING ACT OF 1968/TITLE VIII-OHIO CIVIL RIGHTS ACT-SEXUAL HARASSMENT-INTENTIONAL TORT-AGENCY-AIDED BY AGENCY-VICARIOUS LIABILITY-DIRECT LIABILITY-NEGLIGENCE-NEGLIGENT HIRING AND/OR SUPERVISION - Appellant's counterclaim failed to sufficiently plead claims for quid pro quo sexual harassment and hostile environment harassment under the Fair Housing Act under traditional principles of vicarious liability based upon the doctrine of respondeat superior involving the aided-by-agency theory of vicarious liability. Appellee was not liable for the intentional torts of its employee under a scope-of-employment analysis. Appellant's counterclaim also failed to sufficiently plead direct liability claims for negligent hiring and/or supervision.