retaliation claim in Ohio

2026Peterson v. Buckeye Steel Casings, 133 Ohio App.3d 715, 728 (10th Dist. 1999).

2023No. 22AP-524 36 {¶ 105} This court has observed that “denial of consideration for promotion, exclusion from meetings, and being singled out for discipline were sufficient to demonstrate adverse employment action for a retaliation claim.” Moody at ¶ 39 , citing Peterson v. Buckeye Steel Casings, 133 Ohio App.3d 715, 728 (10th Dist.1999).

2024Specifically, R.C. 4112.02(I) states that “it is an unlawful business practice to discriminate against a person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under sections 4112.01 to 4112.07 of the Revised Code.” {¶ 48} “A plaintiff may prove a retaliation claim through either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Diller v. Miami Valley Hosp., 2017-Ohio-9051, ¶ 46 (2d Dist.), citing Imwalle v. Reliance Med.

2023Franklin No. 12AP-1073, 2013-Ohio-4210, ¶ 60 . “[T]o prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that retaliation is a determinative factor—not just a motivating factor—in the employer’s decision to take adverse employment action.” Diller v. Miami Valley Hospital, 2017-Ohio-9051 , 102 N.E.3d 520, ¶ 46 (2d Dist.), quoting Nebozuk at ¶ 45. {¶11} “To demonstrate a causal connection between a materially adverse action, such as suspension or termination, and the exercise of protected rights, ‘a plaintiff must proffer evidence sufficient to raise the inference that [the] protected activity

2024“A plaintiff may establish pretext by proving that: (1) the employer’s stated reason for [the action] has no basis in fact, (2) the reason offered was not the actual reason for the [action], or (3) the reason offered was insufficient to explain the employer’s action.” Id. at ¶ 77. {¶24} “To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must ‘establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.’” EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 770 (6th Cir. 2015).

2023“To prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must ‘establish that his or her protected activity was a but-for cause of the alleged adverse action by the employer.’” EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 782 F.3d 753, 770 (6th Cir.2015).

2023Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 64 (2006).

2021Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 64 (2006) ("Demonstrating the third prima facie element in a Title VII retaliation case, an adverse employment action, is less onerous than in the discrimination context in that it 'is not limited to discriminatory actions that affect the terms and conditions of employment.' "). {¶ 39} We have held that denial of consideration for promotion, exclusion from meetings, and being singled out for discipline were sufficient to demonstrate adverse employment action for a retaliation claim.

2024Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 543 (6th Cir. 2008), and Nebozuk v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 2014-Ohio-1600, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.).

2016Franklin No. 13AP-591, 2014-Ohio-1600, ¶ 45 . {¶53} With respect to the third element of a retaliation claim, the majority reiterates its position that Vogt’s transfer to the Pioneer Group constituted an adverse employment action.

2025“Because of the similarities between R.C. 4112.02(I) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ohio courts look to federal case law for Case No. 2023-00531JD -18- DECISION assistance in interpreting retaliation claims under R.C. 4112.02(I).” Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 2021-Ohio-4578, ¶ 35 (10th Dist.). {¶50} A plaintiff may prove a retaliation claim through either direct or circumstantial evidence that unlawful retaliation motivated the employer’s adverse employment decision.” Smith, 2013-Ohio-4210, at ¶ 47 (10th Dist.).

2023Franklin No. 12AP-1073, 2013-Ohio-4210, ¶ 60 . “[T]o prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that retaliation is a determinative factor—not just a motivating factor—in the employer’s decision to take adverse employment action.” Diller v. Miami Valley Hospital, 2017-Ohio-9051 , 102 N.E.3d 520, ¶ 46 (2d Dist.), quoting Nebozuk at ¶ 45. {¶11} “To demonstrate a causal connection between a materially adverse action, such as suspension or termination, and the exercise of protected rights, ‘a plaintiff must proffer evidence sufficient to raise the inference that [the] protected activity

2016Retaliation Claim {¶52} To establish a case of retaliation, a claimant must prove that “(1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) the defending party was aware that the claimant had engaged in that activity, (3) the defending party took an adverse employment action against the employee, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action.” Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 13 . “[T]o prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that retaliation is a determinative factor — not just a motivating factor —

2016Retaliation Claim {¶52} To establish a case of retaliation, a claimant must prove that “(1) she engaged in a protected activity, (2) the defending party was aware that the claimant had engaged in that activity, (3) the defending party took an adverse employment action against the employee, and (4) there is a causal connection between the protected activity and adverse action.” Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 , 2007-Ohio-6442 , 879 N.E.2d 174, ¶ 13 . “[T]o prevail on a retaliation claim, a plaintiff must show that retaliation is a determinative factor — not just a motivating factor —

2014But “[t]he plaintiff cannot prevail if it appears from the evidence that the employer would have made the same decision regardless of the plaintiff’s participation in the protected activity.” Neal v. Hamilton Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 670, 678 , 622 N.E.2d 1130 (1st Dist.1993). {¶24} In this case, there was no error in the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

2014But “[t]he plaintiff cannot prevail if it appears from the evidence that the employer would have made the same decision regardless of the plaintiff’s participation in the protected activity.” Neal v. Hamilton Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 670, 678 , 622 N.E.2d 1130 (1st Dist.1993). {¶24} In this case, there was no error in the trial court’s entry of summary judgment on the retaliation claim.

2013Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481, 494 (6th Cir. Ohio 2010); Skrjanc at 317 .

2011Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders (C.A.6, 2010), 615 F.3d 481, 494 . {¶18} Manigault testified that the May 11, 2006 physician certification remained in effect for one year.

2024Pettay v. Adtalem Global Edn., Inc., 2022-Ohio-3015, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.), quoting Greer-Burger at ¶ 13, fn. 2 , citing Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.

2023No. 21AP-508, 2022-Ohio-3015, ¶ 10 .

2023Michael, 496 F.3d 584 at 596 .

2009See Michael, 496 F.3d at 596 ; Tuttle v. Metro.

2026To prevail on a retaliation claim under R.C. 5321.02(A), “[a] tenant must, therefore, show by a preponderance of the evidence, that the relationship between the complaint and action resulted from a retaliatory motive.” Id.; Webb v. C & J Properties, LLC, 2010-Ohio-3818 , ¶ 17 (12th Dist.), quoting Weishaar 12 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS v. Strimbu, 76 Ohio App.3d 276, 286 (1991). {¶34} Here, the eviction was filed 16 days after Conrex received the citation from the City, and there is nothing in the record to show that Conrex had notice of the citation until after it had filed the evic

2025“Because of the similarities between R.C. 4112.02(I) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Ohio courts look to federal case law for Case No. 2023-00531JD -18- DECISION assistance in interpreting retaliation claims under R.C. 4112.02(I).” Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 2021-Ohio-4578, ¶ 35 (10th Dist.). {¶50} A plaintiff may prove a retaliation claim through either direct or circumstantial evidence that unlawful retaliation motivated the employer’s adverse employment decision.” Smith, 2013-Ohio-4210, at ¶ 47 (10th Dist.).

2024As the court explained in Fincher v. Depository Trust & Clearing Corp., 604 F.3d 712, 721 (2d Cir. 2010): [A]t least in a run-of-the-mine case, . . . an employer’s failure to investigate a complaint of discrimination cannot be considered an adverse employment action taken in retaliation for the filing of the same discrimination complaint. . . .

2024Prods., Inc., 515 F.3d 531, 543 (6th Cir. 2008), and Nebozuk v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 2014-Ohio-1600, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.).

2023Petrovski v. Federal Express Corp., 210 F.Supp.2d 943, 948 (N.D.

2023As such, demonstrating an adverse employment action for purposes of a retaliation claim “is less onerous than in the discrimination context.” Arnold v. Columbus, 515 Fed.Appx. 524, 536-37 (6th Cir.2013), quoting Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry.

2023No. 07AP- 923, 2008-Ohio-2306, ¶ 15-16 (holding that the “mere assertion of a union grievance, not based upon opposition to discrimination, does not constitute protected activity” for purposes of a retaliation claim); Ksiazek v. Columbiana Cty.

2023See also Henry v. Abbott Laboratories, 651 Fed.Appx. 494, 505 (6th Cir.2016) (finding that a low performance evaluation and a “letter of expectations threatening further action if her performance did not improve” were adverse employment actions for purposes of a retaliation claim); Arnold at 537 . {¶ 106} Mr. Childs’ Action Plan obligated him to send to Ms. Flury each week a recap of his process walks, a written copy of his store walks, a recap demonstrating that he “ask[ed] 5 department leaders or backups for feedback,” and “a detailed copy of his planning sessions.” (Childs Dep., Ex. 18.) Th

2023Franklin No. 04AP- 425, 2005-Ohio-1264, ¶ 26 (interpreting case law to hold that “an interval of two months between complaint and adverse action so diluted an inference of causation that, without more, a retaliation claim could not stand”). {¶20} In fact, even if the record clearly established that this subordinate had been aware of Hall’s report in the March 2020 email exchange, temporal proximity alone still would not, given the other deficiencies already noted in this analysis, have been sufficient to establish causation given that almost fourteen weeks had elapsed between the March 2020 em

2020See Thomas v. AT&T Servs., 933 F.Supp.2d 954, 969 (N.D.Ohio 2013) (noting that "any [employer] activity that pre-dates Plaintiff's [protected activity] cannot, as a matter of law, serve as the basis for Plaintiff's retaliation claim").