adea claim in Ohio

8 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1990–2024 1 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.

Followed or applied (3)

Case	Followed	Cited
Melanie Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc.green ca6 · 2021 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2024–2024 1 sentence 2024The Sixth Circuit has found that Bostock has not changed the framework of an ADEA claim (the federal counterpart to a R.C. 4112.14 claim.) Pelcha v. MW Bancorp, Inc., 988 F.3d 318, 324 (6th Cir. 2021).	1	1
Ellis E. NICHOLS, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LORAL VOUGHT SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Defendant-Appelleegreen ca5 · 1996 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2016 2 sentences 2016Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 41-42 (5th Cir.1996) (upholding summary judgment in an ADEA claim because an immediate supervisor’s allegedly discriminatory statements regarding an employee’s age could not be imputed to the relevant decision maker’s discharge of the employee). 2016Corp., 81 F.3d 38, 41-42 (5th Cir.1996) (upholding summary judgment in an ADEA claim because an immediate supervisor’s allegedly discriminatory statements regarding an employee’s age could not be imputed to the relevant decision maker’s discharge of the employee).	1	1
McNeely v. Ross Correctional Institute, Unpublished Decision (10-17-2006)green ohioctapp · 2006 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2010–2010 2 sentences 2010Revenue Corp. (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 419, 423-424 . {¶ 13} “Under Ohio law, one exception exists to the requirement that an employee elect her remedy for an age discrimination claim: an employee is not barred from bringing a civil lawsuit after filing a charge with the OCRC if the employee expressly indicates in the OCRC charge that the filing is made for purposes of perfecting an ADEA claim and the employee does not seek an OCRC investigation.” McNeely, supra, at ¶15. {¶ 14} There is no evidence to suggest that the limited exception to the election of remedies doctrine applies in this case. 2010Revenue Corp. (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 419, 423-424 . {¶ 13} “Under Ohio law, one exception exists to the requirement that an employee elect her remedy for an age discrimination claim: an employee is not barred from bringing a civil lawsuit after filing a charge with the OCRC if the employee expressly indicates in the OCRC charge that the filing is made for purposes of perfecting an ADEA claim and the employee does not seek an OCRC investigation.” McNeely, supra, at ¶15. {¶ 14} There is no evidence to suggest that the limited exception to the election of remedies doctrine applies in this case.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (8)

Case	Cited	Years
Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. green ohio · 1984 2 sentences 2006Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 45 (noting that although a plaintiff's claim may fail under Ohio law due to procedural defaults, a plaintiff may still file a claim under the ADEA). {¶ 16} Here, according to plaintiff's complaint and her brief on appeal, plaintiff filed a charge with the OCRC and the EEOC prior to filing a civil action. 2006Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 45 (noting that although a plaintiff's claim may fail under Ohio law due to procedural defaults, a plaintiff may still file a claim under the ADEA). {¶ 16} Here, according to plaintiff's complaint and her brief on appeal, plaintiff filed a charge with the OCRC and the EEOC prior to filing a civil action.	2	1990–2006
Ackman v. Ohio Knife Co. green ohsd · 1984 2 sentences 2017Id. {¶ 33} Both Baker and the Eighth District in GMS, supra, rely on Ackman v. Ohio Knife Co ., 589 F.Supp. 768 (S.D.Ohio 1984), which similarly held that the plaintiff there satisfied the prerequisite for filing a state administrative claim for EEOC purposes. 2017Id. {¶ 33} Both Baker and the Eighth District in GMS, supra, rely on Ackman v. Ohio Knife Co ., 589 F.Supp. 768 (S.D.Ohio 1984), which similarly held that the plaintiff there satisfied the prerequisite for filing a state administrative claim for EEOC purposes.	1	2017–2017
Baker v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. green ohsd · 1993 2 sentences 2017Id. {¶ 33} Both Baker and the Eighth District in GMS, supra, rely on Ackman v. Ohio Knife Co ., 589 F.Supp. 768 (S.D.Ohio 1984), which similarly held that the plaintiff there satisfied the prerequisite for filing a state administrative claim for EEOC purposes. 2017Id. {¶ 33} Both Baker and the Eighth District in GMS, supra, rely on Ackman v. Ohio Knife Co ., 589 F.Supp. 768 (S.D.Ohio 1984), which similarly held that the plaintiff there satisfied the prerequisite for filing a state administrative claim for EEOC purposes.	1	2017–2017
Balent v. National Revenue Corp. green ohioctapp · 1994 2 sentences 2010Revenue Corp. (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 419, 423-424 . {¶ 13} “Under Ohio law, one exception exists to the requirement that an employee elect her remedy for an age discrimination claim: an employee is not barred from bringing a civil lawsuit after filing a charge with the OCRC if the employee expressly indicates in the OCRC charge that the filing is made for purposes of perfecting an ADEA claim and the employee does not seek an OCRC investigation.” McNeely, supra, at ¶15. {¶ 14} There is no evidence to suggest that the limited exception to the election of remedies doctrine applies in this case. 2010Revenue Corp. (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 419, 423-424 . {¶ 13} “Under Ohio law, one exception exists to the requirement that an employee elect her remedy for an age discrimination claim: an employee is not barred from bringing a civil lawsuit after filing a charge with the OCRC if the employee expressly indicates in the OCRC charge that the filing is made for purposes of perfecting an ADEA claim and the employee does not seek an OCRC investigation.” McNeely, supra, at ¶15. {¶ 14} There is no evidence to suggest that the limited exception to the election of remedies doctrine applies in this case.	1	2010–2010
Ruth WILSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GRUMMAN OHIO CORP., Fka Grumman Flxible Corp., Defendant-Appellee green ca6 · 1987 2 sentences 2006Id. {¶ 12} Plaintiff contends that because she timely filed a civil action alleging an ADEA claim in federal court but had to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction over RCI, the 90-day limitations period should be equitably tolled. 2006Id. {¶ 12} Plaintiff contends that because she timely filed a civil action alleging an ADEA claim in federal court but had to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction over RCI, the 90-day limitations period should be equitably tolled.	1	2006–2006
Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents green scotus · 2000 2 sentences 2005Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents (2000), 528 U.S. 62 , 91 (explaining that the ADEA does not abrogate sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is not a valid exercise of Congress' power to enact legislation to carry out the protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution). {¶ 89} Appellants do not disagree with the above statement of law, but rather claim that it is inapplicable. 2005Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents (2000), 528 U.S. 62 , 91 (explaining that the ADEA does not abrogate sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment because it is not a valid exercise of Congress' power to enact legislation to carry out the protections under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution). {¶ 89} Appellants do not disagree with the above statement of law, but rather claim that it is inapplicable.	1	2005–2005
Henry W. BIENKOWSKI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Defendant-Appellee green ca5 · 1988 2 sentences 2002Airlines, Inc. (C.A.5, 1988), 851 F.2d 1503, 1507-1508 . {¶ 14} Plaintiff has failed to prove her claim of age discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence. 2002Airlines, Inc. (C.A.5, 1988), 851 F.2d 1503, 1507-1508 . {¶ 14} Plaintiff has failed to prove her claim of age discrimination by a preponderance of the evidence.	1	2002–2002
Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans green scotus · 1979 2 sentences 1990Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans (1979), 441 U.S. 750, 755-56 , 99 S.Ct. 2066, 2071 , 60 L.Ed.2d 609, 615-616 ; Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 45, 46 , 14 OBR 440, 441, 471 N.E.2d 471, 472 . 1990Oscar Mayer & Co. v. Evans (1979), 441 U.S. 750, 755-56 , 99 S.Ct. 2066, 2071 , 60 L.Ed.2d 609, 615-616 ; Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 45, 46 , 14 OBR 440, 441, 471 N.E.2d 471, 472 .	1	1990–1990

Where else courts name it

TX 12 (2000–2025) CA 11 (1990–2021) AL 8 (1986–2025) OH 8 (1990–2024) NJ 7 (1994–2024) FL 6 (1993–2013) CT 6 (1985–1999) MS 5 (1992–2007) MD 4 (2004–2009) IL 4 (2007–2017) MA 3 (1987–1993) OR 3 (2010–2016) TN 3 (1996–2018) NC 3 (2020–2020) LA 3 (1999–2016) WI 3 (1980–2000) NM 2 (1998–1998) VA 2 (1998–2014) PA 2 (2005–2025) MN 2 (2000–2004) WV 2 (1999–2002) CO 2 (1990–1994)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check