Harassment Cases

Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; University of Toledo Athletic Department; athletics; negligent misrepresentation; promissory estoppel; negligence; discretionary immunity. In an action where plaintiff was removed from University of Toledo's women's soccer team, the court found that defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity for the decision to remove plaintiff from the team. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant supplied false information to plaintiff that the document plaintiff signed was a National Letter of Intent, and therefore, plaintiff failed to satisfy all the elements of the claim. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel because the court found that plaintiff's relationship with University of Toledo was contractual in nature, and therefore, the claim failed as a matter of law. Defendant was further entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for negligence as the court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for the claim since plaintiff pointed to no facts or supportive law that would allow the court to conclude that a duty of care existed to provide a safe team environment free from abuse, harassment, ridicule, embarrassment, and hostility. Judgment for defendant.

LANDLORD/TENANT — DAMAGES — ATTORNEY FEES: The trial court did not err in denying plaintiff landlord's full claim of damages where the landlord failed to sufficiently preserve her morning-of-trial request for additional damages, the trial court's finding of ordinary wear and tear was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, and the trial court's finding that the parties mutually agreed to terminate the lease was supported by the evidence. The trial court did not err in awarding damages to defendant tenant for moving expenses based on constructive eviction where the record shows that, despite the subsequent agreement reached between the landlord and tenant, the landlord's retaliatory conduct and breach of the peace were the acts that compelled the tenant to leave. The trial court did not err in awarding damages to the tenant for lost wages where the record credibly established that the landlord visited the tenant's workplace for the purposes of harassing her or trying to get her fired and the tenant left work due to the intrusion. [See CONCURRENCE: Proximate cause existed on the claim for lost wages based on the trial court's unchallenged finding that the tenant left work because the landlord showed up.] The trial court did not err in awarding damages to the tenant for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the court issued detailed findings in its judgment entry supporting the various elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress and the landlord neglected to challenge those findings or otherwise explain why they defied the manifest weight of the evidence. [But see DISSENT: The evidence presented was insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim of damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress where the tenant failed to present requisite evidence to act as a guarantee of the genuineness of her claim.] The trial court did not err in awarding damages to the tenant for rent abatement where the tenant testified

constructive discharge, hostile work environment, reverse racial discrimination, negligent hiring/retention/supervision