Retaliation Cases

Arbitration Agreement waiver scope. Trial court properly found that the parties' dispute was not governed by arbitration plaintiff's claims existed independently of the employment relationship and her R.C. Chapter 4112-based claims were not subject to arbitration due to lack of sufficient evidence of assent and/or waiver.

Summary judgment in favor of appellee on claims of disability discrimination and retaliation is appropriate where appellant provided no evidence that he was able to perform the functions of the job, even with a reasonable accommodation, or that he engaged in a protected activity, respectively. Trial court does not abuse its discretion in denying motion for leave to amend the complaint where motion was untimely filed after summary judgment motion, resulting in prejudice to appellee.

Court of Claims erred when it granted summary judgment to appellee on appellant's breach of contract claim where the evidence presented by appellant permitted the inference that appellant's academic advisor harbored an age-related bias against appellant and subsequently persuaded another member of appellant's Ph.D. committee to change appellant's grade on the comprehensive written examination from "overall pass" to "fail," as such conduct, if proven at trial, represents a substantial departure from accepted academic norms as to demonstrate that appellant's academic advisor and committee member did not actually exercise professional judgment. Even though appellant's dismissal from the Ph.D. program resulted in the loss of his position as a paid teaching assistant ("TA"), appellee was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, as to appellant's statutory age discrimination claim because the allegations of discriminatory conduct related to appellant's status as a student and not the conditions of his employment as a TA. Appellee was entitled to judgment, as a matter of law, as to appellant's statutory retaliation claim because the discriminatory practices opposed by appellant related to his status as a student and not the conditions of his employment as a TA. Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part cause remanded.

To establish a wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim, the plaintiff must establish the (1) clarity (2) jeopardy (3) causation (4) and overriding justification elements of the requisite legal test. A plaintiff may establish a gender discrimination claim by demonstrating he or she was (1) a member of a protected class (2) was qualified for the job (3) suffered an adverse employment action and (4) was treated differently than a similarly situated non minority coworker who had engaged in the same or similar conduct. To establish a perceived disability discrimination claim, the plaintiff need not demonstrate that he or she has a qualifying disability under Ohio's discrimination law but must demonstrate that he or she was perceived by the employer as being disabled.

Civ.R. 26 discovery compel privileged provisional remedy final appealable order R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) European Union General Data Protection Regulation. - Trial court's order granting motion to compel of potentially privileged or confidential documents was a provisional remedy under R.C. 2505.02 and thus, subject to immediate appeal. Assuming the European Union's General Data Production Regulation applies to the personnel files of European citizens, the factors to be considered weigh in favor of production. However, the trial court should have conducted an in camera inspection of the documents requested and redacted those documents deemed irrelevant or confidential.