Retaliation Cases

R.C. 2711.01, arbitration, R.C. 2711.02, stay of trial pending arbitration, economic duress, procedural and substantive unconscionability. The trial court's grant of appellee's motion to stay the proceedings pending arbitration is supported by the record. Appellant has failed to demonstrate the presence of economic duress that would invalidate the enforceability of the arbitration agreement or that the agreement is unconscionable.

Violation of ERISA

The trial court correctly confined its review to the record as filed by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC) related to a charge of discrimination against appellant's former employer. The trial court did not err in applying the "unlawful, irrational, arbitrary or capricious" standard of review to the OCRC's decision to dismiss appellant's charge of discrimination or in finding that the OCRC's decision was not unlawful, irrational, arbitrary or capricious. Appellant asserted that an unlawful discriminatory practice occurred on December 21, 2017, when her former employer filed a brief in a prior case asserting that further review of appellant's termination was moot because her teaching license had been permanently revoked. The OCRC determined that the former employer's argument was not a "discrete and new act of harm" to appellant over which it had jurisdiction, and the trial court correctly found sufficient justification for the OCRC's decision not to conduct an evidentiary hearing or issue a complaint. Judgment affirmed.

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS — ATTORNEY FEES: The trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees to plaintiff landlord against defendant tenant's attorney under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(i) in an eviction action, where the court's finding that the attorney had engaged in frivolous conduct by protracting the proceedings for the obvious purpose of unnecessarily delaying defendant's eviction was supported by the facts and the law, as the record demonstrated that the objections the attorney had filed to a magistrate's order setting a bond amount lacked any basis in law and were not filed in accordance with the local rules, and the disability-based discrimination claim the attorney filed against plaintiff lacked an evidentiary basis, and that this conduct was undertaken for the stated purpose of delaying the eviction.

FMLA interference, FMLA retaliation, admission of evidence, Evid.R. 408, reviewing court, jury demand, jury waiver

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