Harassment Cases

summary judgment, Civ.R. 56, retaliation, genuine issue of material fact, Civ.R. 15(A), amended complaint

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Criminal convictions for failure to file a complete and accurate campaign statement—Misuse of county resources and staff by allowing staff to work on judicial campaign during work hours and at public expense—Inappropriate sexual conduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and the Code of Judicial Conduct, including committing an illegal act that reflected adversely on trustworthiness and honesty, undermining public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary, and engaging in harassment based on sex in the performance of judicial duties—Indefinite suspension with conditions for reinstatement.

Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12(C) discrimination R.C. 4112.02(A) R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) R.C. 4112.02(J) individual liability aid and abet R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) motion to amend complaint change name final appealable order. The trial court's order granting plaintiff-appellee's motion to amend her complaint where the plaintiff-appellee moved to change the name of the party defendant where plaintiff-appellee demonstrated she mistakenly omitted a portion of the party's name on the complaint is not a final appealable order. We therefore have no jurisdiction to review the second assignment of error. The trial court properly denied the supervisor's Civ.R. 12(C) motion for judgment on the pleadings. R.C. 4112.02(J) expressly imposes liability on a political subdivision employee so as to trigger the immunity exception outlined in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c).

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.

harassment, negligence, R.C. 5321.04, speculation, new evidence

domestic violence protective order continuous harassment legitimate purpose emotional distress

This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff-employee's THRA and TPPA claims against his employer. As to the employee's THRA claim, the trial court found that the evidence of harassment and discriminatory conduct was not so severe or pervasive so as to establish a hostile work environment. As to the employee's TPPA claim, the trial court found that the employer had a valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Additionally, the trial court found that the employee failed to establish that one of the entities was his employer for purpose of liability under either the THRA or the TPPA. Finding that the employee presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of disputed material fact with regard to his THRA and TPPA claims, we vacate the trial court's order as to these claims and remand the case to the trial court.

This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff-employee's THRA and TPPA claims against his employer. As to the employee's THRA claim, the trial court found that the evidence of harassment and discriminatory conduct was not so severe or pervasive so as to establish a hostile work environment. As to the employee's TPPA claim, the trial court found that the employer had a valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Additionally, the trial court found that the employee failed to establish that one of the entities was his employer for purpose of liability under either the THRA or the TPPA. Finding that the employee presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of disputed material fact with regard to his THRA and TPPA claims, we vacate the trial court's order as to these claims and remand the case to the trial court.

R.C. 4112.02(A), same-sex sexual harassment, supervisor, wrongful discharge, IIED, negligent hiring

This is an appeal from the trial court's grant of summary judgment dismissing a plaintiff-employee's THRA and TPPA claims against two separate corporate entities—both of which the employee claimed were his employer. As to the employee's THRA claim, the trial court found that the evidence of harassment and discriminatory conduct was not so severe or pervasive so as to establish a hostile work environment. As to the employee's TPPA claim, the trial court found that the employer had a valid, non-discriminatory reason for termination. Additionally, the trial court found that the employee failed to establish that one of the entities was his employer for purpose of liability under either the THRA or the TPPA. Finding that the employee presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of disputed material fact as to both his THRA and TPPA claims against both entities, we vacate the trial court's order and remand the case to the trial court.