Retaliation Cases

Civ.R. 56(C), R.C. 4112. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Guess' claim for retaliation and Plaintiffs' claims for racial discrimination and hostile work environment created by racial harassment. The Court found that Plaintiff Guess' retaliation claim was time-barred. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish that Defendants treated a non-protected, similarly-situated person more favorably. Also, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish that any alleged harassment was severe enough to create a hostile work environment or that it was based on race. Because there was no genuine issues of material fact that Plaintiffs could not establish their prima facie cases, the Court found that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' claims.

Retaliation discrimination Civ.R. 53 objections to magistrate's decision. Plaintiffs, employees of the Ohio State Racing Commission (OSRC), objected to the magistrate's decision recommending judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs alleged OSRC retaliated against them for engaging in the protected activity of filing a discrimination complaint with the Ohio Department of Administrative Services Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO). After a review of the magistrate's decision and the evidence submitted, the court found that the retaliatory actions alleged by plaintiffs were insufficient to dissuade an employee from alleging discrimination. Further, the court found that these actions were supported by legitimate business purposes. Accordingly, the court overruled plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate's decision and rendered judgment for defendant.

The defendant E filed a complaint with the defendant Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, alleging that her employer, the plaintiff Depart- ment of Public Health, had retaliated against her for a protected whis- tleblower disclosure that she made pursuant to statute (§ 4-61dd). As part of her job duties, E was assigned to review an appointment letter submitted to the department by the then director of health for the city of Hartford, requesting approval of W as the acting director of health for the city. Both the letter and W's resume indicated that W held a master's degree in public health. Although she did not independently verify that W had actually received a master's degree in public health, E drafted a letter approving W's appointment, which the commissioner of the department signed. E later learned that W did not possess a master's degree in public health, and she reported that information to her supervisor. Following this disclosure, E received multiple written reprimands and negative and unsatisfactory performance appraisals, and she was demoted, all of which she claimed were the result of retaliation for her disclosure. A hearing was held before a human rights referee from the commission's Office of Public Hearings, who concluded that E had made a protected whistleblower disclosure under § 4-61dd and that the department had retaliated against her for such disclosure. The department appealed to the trial court, which sustained the appeal, concluding that E's disclosure did not qualify as a whistleblower disclo- sure under § 4-61dd, that E failed to establish a causal connection between any alleged whistleblower disclosure and the complained of personnel actions, and that the commission lacked subject matter juris- diction to adjudicate E's complaint because she had brought the same adverse personnel actions at issue through the grievance procedures in her collective bargaining agreement. On appeal to this court, held: 1. The trial court erred in co