Hostile Work Environment Cases

Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; race discrimination; age discrimination; hostile work environment; retaliation. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that defendant unlawfully discriminated against her based on race and age because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination and the evidence presented showed that defendant terminated plaintiff's employment for a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for hostile work environment because none of the evidence showed that the alleged harassment that plaintiff experienced was based upon race or age. Finally, defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for retaliation because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation as plaintiff could not show a causal connection between her protected activity and the termination of her employment. Judgment for defendant.

Civ.R. 56, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. Plaintiff failed to produce a genuine issue as to any material fact that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin, or that he was constructively discharged. The alleged hostile actions and commentary made by other employees were not racially based and did not materially disrupt plaintiff's work. As plaintiff's experiences amounted to no more than ordinary tribulations of the workplace, plaintiff's hostile work environment claims failed. For the same reasons, plaintiff failed to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 56.

The trial court erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as there is a reasonable dispute of fact whether the display of a noose in appellant's vehicle was severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment. The trial court also erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as to appellant's retaliation claim. There is a reasonable dispute of fact whether appellant's termination based on his refusal to turn over the noose to appellees, or allow them to cut a piece of it for use in the investigation, was protected activity. Judgment reversed and remanded.

The trial court erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as there is a reasonable dispute of fact whether the display of a noose in appellant's vehicle was severe enough conduct to create a hostile work environment. The trial court also erred by granting appellees' motion for summary judgment as to appellant's retaliation claim. There is a reasonable dispute of fact whether appellant's termination based on his refusal to turn over the noose to appellees, or allow them to cut a piece of it for use in the investigation, was protected activity. Judgment reversed and remanded.