employment discrimination claim in Ohio

2017Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 14 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

2017Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 14 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

2017Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 14 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

2017Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 14 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

2024Hamilton No. C-140051, 2014-Ohio-5413, ¶ 23 , quoting Neal v. Hamilton Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 670, 678 , 622 N.E.2d 1130 (1st Dist.1993). {¶72} Establishing causation requires producing “sufficient evidence to support an inference that [the employee’s] protected activity was likely the reason for the adverse [employment] action.” Greene, 1st Dist.

2024Hamilton No. C-140051, 2014-Ohio-5413, ¶ 23 , quoting Neal v. Hamilton Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 670, 678 , 622 N.E.2d 1130 (1st Dist.1993). {¶72} Establishing causation requires producing “sufficient evidence to support an inference that [the employee’s] protected activity was likely the reason for the adverse [employment] action.” Greene, 1st Dist.

2024Hamilton No. C-140051, 2014-Ohio-5413, ¶ 23 , quoting Neal v. Hamilton Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 670, 678 , 622 N.E.2d 1130 (1st Dist.1993). {¶72} Establishing causation requires producing “sufficient evidence to support an inference that [the employee’s] protected activity was likely the reason for the adverse [employment] action.” Greene, 1st Dist.

2010Id. at 364 . *378 {¶ 26} In White , the court noted that in dismissing the respondent’s underlying employment-discrimination claim, the United States District Court had found that the respondent had (1) destroyed “parts of an autobiographical manuscript, a substantial portion of which covered events bearing on her claims before the court,” (2) lied in her deposition “when she stated that she had destroyed the entire manuscript,” and (3) “knowingly and willfully intended to destroy discoverable and relevant evidence, and that her statements to the contrary were not believable.” Id. at 350 ; see

2010Id. at 364 . *378 {¶ 26} In White , the court noted that in dismissing the respondent’s underlying employment-discrimination claim, the United States District Court had found that the respondent had (1) destroyed “parts of an autobiographical manuscript, a substantial portion of which covered events bearing on her claims before the court,” (2) lied in her deposition “when she stated that she had destroyed the entire manuscript,” and (3) “knowingly and willfully intended to destroy discoverable and relevant evidence, and that her statements to the contrary were not believable.” Id. at 350 ; see

2010Id. at ¶ 18, 22. {¶ 27} In Dayton Bar Assn. v. Ellison, 118 Ohio St.3d 128 , 2008-Ohio-1808 , 886 N.E.2d 836 , the attorney’s negligence resulted in the dismissal of the client’s employment-discrimination claim, and when the client contacted the attorney to check on the status of her claim, the attorney falsely stated that she did not know anything and failed to inform the client of the court’s action until more than six months after the claim had been dismissed.

2010Defender (1997), 170 F.R.D. 138,150-151 . {¶ 27} Based upon those findings, the respondent was indefinitely suspended from the practice of law in the United States District Court.

2008Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc. , 75 Ohio St.3d 578 , 583 , 1996-Ohio-265 .

2004Accordingly, the court held that Branche’s claim was not pre-empted because it was, essentially, “an employment discrimination claim that [did] not implicate any arena in which airlines compete” and, as *402 such, did “not relate to the services of an air carrier within the meaning of § 41713[.]” Id., 342 F.3d at 1261 . {¶ 26} The Eleventh Circuit also analyzed and discussed the Botz decision, noting the significant difference in facts between the two.

2004Id., 342 F.3d at 1262-1263 .

2003Dresher at 293 ; Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421 , 430 ; Civ.R. 56(E). {¶ 17} Plaintiff's first assignment of error asserts that the trial court erred in granting defendants Schugel's and White's summary judgment motion as to plaintiff's claims for (1) employment discrimination on the basis of a disability, and (2) wrongful discharge based on public policy. {¶ 18} Regarding the employment discrimination claim, plaintiff first contends the trial court erroneously held as a matter of law that plaintiff's upper respiratory illness was not a "disability" within the meaning of R.C. 4112.01

1999In its recent decision of Rice v. Certain Teed Corp. (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 417 , the Ohio Supreme Court specifically held that punitive damages are recoverable under R.C. 4112.99 , which provides a plaintiff with an independent "civil action for damages, injunctive relief, or any other appropriate relief" to remedy all forms of discrimination prohibited by R.C.