Retaliation Cases

Employment termination

The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted Plaintiff's Exhibits 29 and 36 into evidence during trial because the probative value of the exhibits substantially outweighed any danger of any prejudice to the appellants. The jury's verdict in favor of the plaintiff with respect to his claims for breach of contract, discrimination, and retaliation were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The trial court did not err when it overruled the appellants' motions for directed verdicts and motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the appellants' untimely motion for leave to amend their answer to include the after-acquired evidence defense. Judgment affirmed.

summary judgment - sex discrimination - gender discrimination - sexual harassment - privacy interest - R.C. 4112.02(A) - retaliatory discrimination - circumstantial evidence - R.C. 4112.02(I) - aiding and abetting to commit discrimination - R.C. 4112.02(J)

Single joint employer doctrine retaliatory discharge sexual harassment/hostile work environment jury interrogatories plain error closing arguments

In the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of Miami Valley Hospital on Noelle Diller's claims of sexual harassment (hostile environment) and retaliation. While the trial court abused its discretion in striking Exhibits B, C, and D, attached to Diller's memorandum in opposition to MVH's motion for summary judgment, since the Exhibits were properly authenticated business records, the documents were either not in dispute, were otherwise part of the record, or were not relevant to the summary judgment decision, and the error was harmless. Judgment affirmed.