Retaliation Cases

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err in granting defendants summary judgment on plaintiff's claims for race discrimination and retaliation. Plaintiff failed to present evidence indicating that one of the court director's stated reasons for upholding the suspension, plaintiff's failure to check in and out with his supervisor as required, was a pretext for discrimination. Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation.

REAL PROPERTY/LANDLORD AND TENANT: In a forcible-entry-and-detainer action, the trial court erred by prohibiting the tenant from introducing evidence to support his defense of retaliation by the landlord: the defense of retaliation under R.C. 5321.02 need not be pleaded in the answer to a complaint for forcible entry and detainer, because, under Civ.R. 1(c), the civil rules of procedure are not applicable to such actions. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the tenant's motion for leave to amend his counterclaims where his request was untimely: although the tenant had filed his counterclaims well before trial, he only moved for leave to amend on the first day of the jury trial and only after the landlord had moved to dismiss the counterclaims. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the tenant's second motion for leave to amend his answer and counterclaims when the request was untimely: the request was made over a year after the tenant had filed his original answer and counterclaims, and the facts underlying the new defenses and counterclaims asserted were known by the tenant at the time the forcible-entry-and-detainer action was filed against him. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the tenant from introducing evidence of the condition of the premises to demonstrate the reasonable rental value of the property when the reasonable rental value was not at issue at trial instead, the rental rate the parties had agreed upon was at issue.