102 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1985–2026 23 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Barker v. Scovill, Inc.green2 sentences2022The court subsequently adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for age discrimination claims under Ohio law in Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 (1983). 2022The court subsequently adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for age discrimination claims under Ohio law in Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 (1983). | 6 | 15 |
Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdinegreen2 sentences2022"Establishing a prima facie case 'creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' " Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , ¶ 11, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). 5The Supreme Court adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for race discrimination claims under Ohio law in Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981). 2022"Establishing a prima facie case 'creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' " Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , ¶ 11, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). 5The Supreme Court adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for race discrimination claims under Ohio law in Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981). | 6 | 10 |
Kohmescher v. Kroger Co.green2 sentences2026See Kohmescher v. Kroger Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 501, 505 (1991), citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (finding the McDonnell Douglas test inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination). 2026See Kohmescher v. Kroger Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 501, 505 (1991), citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (finding the McDonnell Douglas test inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination). | 4 | 8 |
Shirley J. MITCHELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOLEDO HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appelleegreen2 sentences2021To “prove a prima facie case of discrimination, [the] plaintiff must show: (1) that * * * she is a member of a protected group; (2) that * * * she was subject to an adverse employment decision; (3) that * * * she was qualified for the position; and (4) that * * * she was treated differently [from] similarly situated [colleagues].” Gast v. City of Martins Ferry, 2019-Ohio-1147 , 129 N.E.3d 507, ¶ 6 (7th Dist.), citing Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577, 582-583 (6th Cir.1992). 1996(C.A.6, 1992), 964 F.2d 577, 582 (in racial and age discrimination claim, plaintiff may show that “a comparable nonprotect-ed person was treated better” as alternative to fourth element of McDonnell Douglas test); Kohmescher v. Kroger Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 501, 504 , 575 N.E.2d 439, 441-442 (applying modified McDonnell Douglas test to age discrimination claim). | 3 | 5 |
Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurstongreen2 sentences2026See Kohmescher v. Kroger Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 501, 505 (1991), citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (finding the McDonnell Douglas test inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination). 2026See Kohmescher v. Kroger Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 501, 505 (1991), citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston, 469 U.S. 111, 121 (1985) (finding the McDonnell Douglas test inapplicable where the plaintiff presents direct evidence of discrimination). | 2 | 7 |
St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicksgreen2 sentences2015Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). {¶32} In Hicks, the court further explained that once the employer produces some evidence in its defense “(whatever its persuasive effect), * * * the trier of fact proceeds to decide The McDonnell Douglas framework was adopted by this state in Barker v. 2 Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 , 451 N.E.2d 807 (1983). 2015Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 506 , 113 S.Ct. 2742 , 125 L.Ed.2d 407 (1993). {¶32} In Hicks, the court further explained that once the employer produces some evidence in its defense “(whatever its persuasive effect), * * * the trier of fact proceeds to decide The McDonnell Douglas framework was adopted by this state in Barker v. 2 Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 , 451 N.E.2d 807 (1983). | 2 | 5 |
Price Waterhouse v. Hopkinsred2 sentences2015McDonnell Douglas at 802-804; Burdine at 253 . {¶33} One of the most important discrimination cases concerning the applicable causation standard in retaliation cases is Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). 2015McDonnell Douglas at 802-804; Burdine at 253 . {¶33} One of the most important discrimination cases concerning the applicable causation standard in retaliation cases is Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228 , 109 S.Ct. 1775 , 104 L.Ed.2d 268 (1989). | 2 | 4 |
Chitwood v. Dunbar Armored, Inc.green2 sentences2024Instead, “the focus at this point should be on Plaintiff’s objective qualifications, such as his [or her] experience in the industry and demonstrated possession of the required general skills.” Chitwood v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., 267 F.Supp.2d 751, 756 (S.D. 2024Instead, “the focus at this point should be on Plaintiff’s objective qualifications, such as his [or her] experience in the industry and demonstrated possession of the required general skills.” Chitwood v. Dunbar Armored, Inc., 267 F.Supp.2d 751, 756 (S.D. | 2 | 2 |
Georgie Brewer v. New Era, Inc.green2 sentences2018Cline v. Catholic Diocese , 206 F.3d 651 , 661 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that a court must "consider[ ] whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry"); Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517 , 528 (6th Cir.2007) ; Brewer v. New Era, Inc. , 564 F.Appx. 834, 840 (6th Cir.2014). {¶ 28} In their motion for summary judgment, appellees contended that appellant could not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case. 2018Cline v. Catholic Diocese , 206 F.3d 651 , 661 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that a court must "consider[ ] whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry"); Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517 , 528 (6th Cir.2007) ; Brewer v. New Era, Inc. , 564 F.Appx. 834, 840 (6th Cir.2014). {¶ 28} In their motion for summary judgment, appellees contended that appellant could not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case. | 2 | 2 |
Allen v. totes/Isotoner Corp.green2 sentences2016Coryell, supra, at ¶20 , modifying Barker, supra, at ¶20 , citing McDonnell Douglas, supra. The employer “may then overcome the presumption inherent in the prima facie case by propounding a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for [the employee’s] discharge.” Kohmescher, supra, at 503; see also Allen v. totes/Isotoner Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2009-Ohio-4231, ¶4 (citations omitted). 2016Coryell, supra, at ¶20 , modifying Barker, supra, at ¶20 , citing McDonnell Douglas, supra. The employer “may then overcome the presumption inherent in the prima facie case by propounding a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for [the employee’s] discharge.” Kohmescher, supra, at 503; see also Allen v. totes/Isotoner Corp., 123 Ohio St.3d 216 , 2009-Ohio-4231, ¶4 (citations omitted). | 2 | 2 |
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Greengreen2 sentences2021According to the McDonnell Douglas test, “the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Wholf, 2015-Ohio-171 , 26 N.E.3d 902 , ¶ 30, citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). 2021According to the McDonnell Douglas test, “the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination.” Wholf, 2015-Ohio-171 , 26 N.E.3d 902 , ¶ 30, citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). | 1 | 24 |
Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc.green2 sentences2017Manion v. Interbrand Design Forum, L.L.C., 2015-Ohio-348 , 27 N.E.3d 1007 , ¶ 12 (2nd Dist.), citing Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 582 , 664 N.E.2d 1272 (1996). {¶19} Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination. 2017Manion v. Interbrand Design Forum, L.L.C., 2015-Ohio-348 , 27 N.E.3d 1007 , ¶ 12 (2nd Dist.), citing Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 582 , 664 N.E.2d 1272 (1996). {¶19} Under the McDonnell Douglas test, the plaintiff must first prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, a prima facie case of discrimination. | 1 | 6 |
Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Committee v. Ohio Civil Rights Commissiongreen2 sentences2022"Establishing a prima facie case 'creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' " Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , ¶ 11, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). 5The Supreme Court adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for race discrimination claims under Ohio law in Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981). 2022"Establishing a prima facie case 'creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' " Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , ¶ 11, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). 5The Supreme Court adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for race discrimination claims under Ohio law in Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981). | 1 | 4 |
cluster 767990green2 sentences2018Cline v. Catholic Diocese , 206 F.3d 651 , 661 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that a court must "consider[ ] whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry"); Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517 , 528 (6th Cir.2007) ; Brewer v. New Era, Inc. , 564 F.Appx. 834, 840 (6th Cir.2014). {¶ 28} In their motion for summary judgment, appellees contended that appellant could not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case. 2018Cline v. Catholic Diocese , 206 F.3d 651 , 661 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that a court must "consider[ ] whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry"); Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517 , 528 (6th Cir.2007) ; Brewer v. New Era, Inc. , 564 F.Appx. 834, 840 (6th Cir.2014). {¶ 28} In their motion for summary judgment, appellees contended that appellant could not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case. | 1 | 4 |
cluster 747625green2 sentences2024Therefore, the burden next shifts to the Attorney General to “ ‘articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.’ ” Id., quoting Kline v. TVA, 128 F.3d 337 , 342 (6th Cir.1997) and Tex. Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981). 2024Therefore, the burden next shifts to the Attorney General to “ ‘articulate some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the employee’s rejection.’ ” Id., quoting Kline v. TVA, 128 F.3d 337 , 342 (6th Cir.1997) and Tex. Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 252-53 (1981). | 1 | 3 |
Osborne v. Ohio Reformatory for Womengreen2 sentences2026The court then concluded Ms. Fields-Arnold “failed to submit any evidence that a non-protected employee ‘dealt with the same supervisor, ha[s] been subjected to the same standards[,] and [has] engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating No. 25AP-485 9 circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.’ ” (Decision at 9, quoting Brehm v. Macintosh Co., 2019-Ohio-5322, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), and Osborn v. Ohio Reformatory for Women, 2021-Ohio-1036, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).) The court noted that Ms. Fields-Arnold “admit[ted] the employe 2026The court then concluded Ms. Fields-Arnold “failed to submit any evidence that a non-protected employee ‘dealt with the same supervisor, ha[s] been subjected to the same standards[,] and [has] engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating No. 25AP-485 9 circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.’ ” (Decision at 9, quoting Brehm v. Macintosh Co., 2019-Ohio-5322, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), and Osborn v. Ohio Reformatory for Women, 2021-Ohio-1036, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).) The court noted that Ms. Fields-Arnold “admit[ted] the employe | 1 | 2 |
Cicero v. Borg-Warner Automotive, Inc.green2 sentences2024Ohio Apr. 4, 2019), quoting Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579 , 585 (6th Cir. 2002). “[A] court cannot conflate the prima facie analysis with the second stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry.” Leib at id., citing Wexler at id. 2024Ohio Apr. 4, 2019), quoting Cicero v. Borg-Warner Auto., Inc., 280 F.3d 579 , 585 (6th Cir. 2002). “[A] court cannot conflate the prima facie analysis with the second stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry.” Leib at id., citing Wexler at id. | 1 | 2 |
Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc.green2 sentences2018Cline v. Catholic Diocese , 206 F.3d 651 , 661 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that a court must "consider[ ] whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry"); Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517 , 528 (6th Cir.2007) ; Brewer v. New Era, Inc. , 564 F.Appx. 834, 840 (6th Cir.2014). {¶ 28} In their motion for summary judgment, appellees contended that appellant could not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case. 2018Cline v. Catholic Diocese , 206 F.3d 651 , 661 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that a court must "consider[ ] whether there is sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute at each stage of the McDonnell Douglas inquiry"); Blair v. Henry Filters, Inc. , 505 F.3d 517 , 528 (6th Cir.2007) ; Brewer v. New Era, Inc. , 564 F.Appx. 834, 840 (6th Cir.2014). {¶ 28} In their motion for summary judgment, appellees contended that appellant could not establish the fourth prong of the prima facie case. | 1 | 2 |
| Provenzano v. LCI Holdings, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
Harold F. Braithwaite v. The Timken Companygreen2 sentences2026(Emphasis in original.) Manzer at 1084 . {¶ 27} Importantly, regardless of the method used to refute the employer’s proffered reason, “the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of producing sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably reject [the defendants’] explanation and infer that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson at 866 , quoting Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2001). {¶ 28} At the summary judgment stage, for the third prong of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, a plaintiff “must identify e 2026(Emphasis in original.) Manzer at 1084 . {¶ 27} Importantly, regardless of the method used to refute the employer’s proffered reason, “the plaintiff retains the ultimate burden of producing sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably reject [the defendants’] explanation and infer that the defendants intentionally discriminated against him.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Johnson at 866 , quoting Braithwaite v. Timken Co., 258 F.3d 488, 493 (6th Cir. 2001). {¶ 28} At the summary judgment stage, for the third prong of the McDonnell Douglas analysis, a plaintiff “must identify e | 1 | 1 |
| Stanley Johnson v. The Kroger Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sharon MacY v. Hopkins County School Board of Educationgreen | 1 | 1 |
Brehm v. MacIntosh Co.green2 sentences2026The court then concluded Ms. Fields-Arnold “failed to submit any evidence that a non-protected employee ‘dealt with the same supervisor, ha[s] been subjected to the same standards[,] and [has] engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating No. 25AP-485 9 circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.’ ” (Decision at 9, quoting Brehm v. Macintosh Co., 2019-Ohio-5322, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), and Osborn v. Ohio Reformatory for Women, 2021-Ohio-1036, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).) The court noted that Ms. Fields-Arnold “admit[ted] the employe 2026The court then concluded Ms. Fields-Arnold “failed to submit any evidence that a non-protected employee ‘dealt with the same supervisor, ha[s] been subjected to the same standards[,] and [has] engaged in the same conduct without such differentiating or mitigating No. 25AP-485 9 circumstances that would distinguish their conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.’ ” (Decision at 9, quoting Brehm v. Macintosh Co., 2019-Ohio-5322, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.), and Osborn v. Ohio Reformatory for Women, 2021-Ohio-1036, ¶ 23 (10th Dist.).) The court noted that Ms. Fields-Arnold “admit[ted] the employe | 1 | 1 |
| Mickey v. Zeidler Tool and Die Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| James Dixon, Jr. v. Alberto Gonzales, United States Attorney General and Robert S. Mueller, Iii, Fbi Directorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Heiselgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Nelson v. Univ. of Cincinnatigreen | 1 | 1 |
| Janiszewski v. Belmont Career Ctr.green | 1 | 1 |
| Vossman v. AirNet Sys.green | 1 | 1 |
| Waddell v. Grant/Riverside Med. Care Found.green | 1 | 1 |
| Myers v. Cuyahoga Cnty OHgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Greene v. City of Cincinnati, C-070830 (9-26-2008)green | 1 | 1 |
| Russell v. University of Toledogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Everett Perry v. Kenneth McGinnisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gast v. City of Martins Ferrygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Roscoe C. Rowan, III and Charles A. Washington v. Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Bobby Brown v. Packaging Corporation of Americagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Frank L. LOEB, Plaintiff, v. TEXTRON, INC., Et Al., Defendantsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Merrianne Weberg v. Randy Franksgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Lee E. WANGER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. G.A. GRAY COMPANY, Defendant-Appelleegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
O'CONNOR v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp.
green
2 sentences2004Petree and Klatt, JJ., concur. 1 The United States Supreme Court somewhat departed from the McDonnell Douglas standard in O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. (1996), 517 U.S. 308 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 , in which the court rejected the requirement under McDonnell Douglas that a plaintiff alleged that he was replaced by someone outside the age group specifically protected by the applicable state or federal anti-discrimination statute. 2004Petree and Klatt, JJ., concur. 1 The United States Supreme Court somewhat departed from the McDonnell Douglas standard in O'Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corp. (1996), 517 U.S. 308 , 116 S.Ct. 1307 , in which the court rejected the requirement under McDonnell Douglas that a plaintiff alleged that he was replaced by someone outside the age group specifically protected by the applicable state or federal anti-discrimination statute. | 7 | 1998–2004 |
Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A.
green
2 sentences2013See also McFee v. Nursing Care Mgt. of Am., Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 183 , 2010-Ohio-2744, ¶ 35 (The McDonnell Douglas analysis should be involved in cases where indirect evidence of sex discrimination is alleged); Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , ¶ 13-14 (Courts should apply the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas in cases of retaliatory discharge); Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2004-Ohio-723 , ¶ 8-9 (Courts should apply the McDonnell Douglas paradigm in age-discrimination cases.). 2013See also McFee v. Nursing Care Mgt. of Am., Inc., 126 Ohio St.3d 183 , 2010-Ohio-2744, ¶ 35 (The McDonnell Douglas analysis should be involved in cases where indirect evidence of sex discrimination is alleged); Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , ¶ 13-14 (Courts should apply the burden-shifting framework of McDonnell Douglas in cases of retaliatory discharge); Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 , 2004-Ohio-723 , ¶ 8-9 (Courts should apply the McDonnell Douglas paradigm in age-discrimination cases.). | 4 | 2013–2022 |
Williams v. City of Akron
green
2 sentences2022"Establishing a prima facie case 'creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' " Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , ¶ 11, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). 5The Supreme Court adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for race discrimination claims under Ohio law in Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981). 2022"Establishing a prima facie case 'creates a presumption that the employer unlawfully discriminated against the employee.' " Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 , 2005-Ohio-6268 , ¶ 11, quoting Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 254 (1981). 5The Supreme Court adopted use of the McDonnell Douglas framework for race discrimination claims under Ohio law in Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981). | 3 | 2010–2022 |
Smith v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety
green
2 sentences2018Safety , 2013-Ohio-4210 , 997 N.E.2d 597 , ¶ 59 (10th Dist.). {¶ 25} Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff-employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation. 2018Safety , 2013-Ohio-4210 , 997 N.E.2d 597 , ¶ 59 (10th Dist.). {¶ 25} Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, a plaintiff-employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of retaliation. | 2 | 2018–2023 |
Leslie v. Ohio Department of Development
green
2 sentences2022This is a burden of production, not persuasion, and is satisfied if the employer " 'introduce[s] evidence which taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.' " (Emphasis sic.) Id., quoting St. 2022This is a burden of production, not persuasion, and is satisfied if the employer " 'introduce[s] evidence which taken as true, would permit the conclusion that there was a nondiscriminatory reason for the adverse action.' " (Emphasis sic.) Id., quoting St. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Miller v. Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016However, “[b]ecause discriminatory intent is seldom evidenced by overt actions and direct evidence, plaintiffs are more likely to [utilize] the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework to establish a prima facie case.” Miller, supra, at ¶19 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). {¶19} Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must first raise a presumption of discrimination by establishing that (1) the employee was a member of a statutorily-protected class; (2) the employee was discharged; (3) the employee was qualified for the position; and (4) the employee’ 2016However, “[b]ecause discriminatory intent is seldom evidenced by overt actions and direct evidence, plaintiffs are more likely to [utilize] the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework to establish a prima facie case.” Miller, supra, at ¶19 , citing McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973). {¶19} Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, the plaintiff must first raise a presumption of discrimination by establishing that (1) the employee was a member of a statutorily-protected class; (2) the employee was discharged; (3) the employee was qualified for the position; and (4) the employee’ | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Anthony Clayton v. Meijer, Incorporated
green
2 sentences2011Clayton v. Meijer, Inc. (C.A.6, 2002), 281 F.3d 605, 610 . 2011Clayton v. Meijer, Inc. (C.A.6, 2002), 281 F.3d 605, 610 . | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Byrnes v. LCI Communication Holdings Co.
green
2 sentences2011Byrnes v. LCI Communication Holdings Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 125, 128 . {¶24} Analyzing this case under the McDonnell Douglas framework leads to a different result. 2011Byrnes v. LCI Communication Holdings Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 125, 128 . {¶24} Analyzing this case under the McDonnell Douglas framework leads to a different result. | 2 | 2003–2011 |
Sharon L. Gragg v. Somerset Technical College
green
2 sentences2005College (C.A.6, 2004), 373 F.3d 763 , 768 . {¶ 39} At issue in this matter is the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas test, i.e., whether appellant has established that a similarly-situated male was treated more favorably. 2005College (C.A.6, 2004), 373 F.3d 763 , 768 . {¶ 39} At issue in this matter is the fourth prong of the McDonnell Douglas test, i.e., whether appellant has established that a similarly-situated male was treated more favorably. | 2 | 2005–2005 |
Lewis v. Humboldt Acquisition Corp., Inc.
green
2 sentences2026School Bd. of Edn., 484 F.3d 357, 364 (6th Cir. 2007), overruled in part by Lewis Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012). 2026School Bd. of Edn., 484 F.3d 357, 364 (6th Cir. 2007), overruled in part by Lewis Humboldt Acquisition Corp., 681 F.3d 312 (6th Cir. 2012). | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Atkinson v. Akron Bd. of Edn., Unpublished Decision (3-8-2006) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Wholf v. Tremco, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Sweet v. Abbott Foods, Inc., Unpublished Decision (12-27-2005) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Edward E. ERCEGOVICH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Chenevery v. Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Auth. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Brogan v. Family Video Movie Club, Inc. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Manion v. Interbrand Design Forum, L.L.C. green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Mitchell v. Lemmie, 21511 (10-26-2007) green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Ferguson v. Lear Corporation green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Greer-Burger v. Temesi green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Marcus A. Noble v. Brinker International, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Hood v. Diamond Products, Inc. green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Amanda Reeves v. Swift Transportation Company, Inc., Also Known as Swift Transportation Corporation green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Wang v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Linda M. Kocsis v. Multi-Care Management, Inc., D/B/A Bath Manor Special Care Centre green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Crable v. Nestle USA, Inc., Unpublished Decision (6-8-2006) green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Heard v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Carzell Moore v. Walter D. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Patricia J. Kenworthy v. Conoco, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Charlie Dews v. A.B. Dick Company green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Samadder v. DMF of Ohio, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| Paldano v. Althin Medical, Inc. green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.