Retaliation Cases

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.

Disability discrimination failure to accommodate retaliation summary judgment Civ.R. 56. Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, filed claims for disability discrimination, retaliation, and failure to accommodate a disability against defendant for events that occurred in the employer/employee relationship. The court found that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disability discrimination. The court determined that plaintiff was unable to use the indirect method of proving discriminatory intent because she did not provide evidence of an adverse employment action such as reduced pay, demotion, or loss of benefits. Although plaintiff produced evidence that she was given a written reprimand, the written reprimand did not constitute an adverse employment action. The court determined that plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because one instance of formal discipline for failing to reschedule a meeting, increased job duties, a performance review of meets expectations, and an office relocation would not dissuade a reasonable worker from making and supporting a charge of discrimination. The court found that plaintiff's claim for failure to accommodate was barred by the statute of limitations because the actions supporting the claim occurred in July 2016 and plaintiff filed her claim in October of 2018. Plaintiff claims she was also not accommodated in June of 2019 however, the court determined that plaintiff did not move to supplement her claim after June 2019 so that claim was not properly before the court. Therefore, the court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment in favor of the defendant.

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.

A preschool teacher terminated from her employment at a church preschool brought multiple claims against the church, the school, the director of the school, and a church committee. After the teacher presented her evidence to a jury, the court granted motions for a directed verdict as to all defendants except the church and on all claims except common law retaliatory discharge and promissory estoppel. The teacher claimed that the director terminated her employment in retaliation for her complaints about safety issues at the school and that she relied on a promise by the chair of a church committee that a probation report would be removed from her personnel file. The jury found in favor of the church on both counts, and the trial court entered judgment in favor of the church. We affirm the judgment of the trial court in all respects.

Arbitration agreement race discrimination retaliation motion to stay litigation pending arbitration procedurally unconscionable. - Trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting employer's motion to stay litigation pending arbitration of plaintiff's race discrimination and retaliation claims where plaintiff failed to demonstrate that his claims were not subject to arbitration and that the agreement was procedurally unconscionable.