 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hann v. Perkins Township6/30/2004
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
. Rebecca Hann appeals the decision of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas to grant a directed verdict to Perkins Township Board of Trustees and Timothy R. McClung, Chief of Perkins Township Police Department, on her claims for retaliation and sexual discrimination. Because we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting a directed verdict to appellees, we affirm.
. This is the second appeal in this employment case. Hann was hired as the first full-time female police officer for Perkins Township in August 1996. In January 1998, she filed a complaint for sexual discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in violation of R.C. 4112.02, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and for defamation against a number of defendants. The matter proceeded to jury trial on the harassment, discrimination, retaliation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims in June 2000. The jury returned a verdict in favor of all defendants on all claims. Hann appealed only the retaliation and discrimination verdicts in favor of the township and McClung. In Hann v. Perkins Twp. Bd. of Trustees (Nov. 2, 2001), 6th Dist. No. E-00-041 ("Hann I"), this court reversed the jury's verdict because the trial court had failed to re-instruct the jury on the retaliation and discrimination claims after the jury had posed an ambiguous question to the court during deliberations. The case was retried on April 7 - 10, 2003, before a different visiting judge. After Hann rested, appellees' motion for a directed verdict was granted. Hann now raises the following assignment of error on appeal:
. "The trial court committed reversible error by directing a verdict in defendants' favor."
. Hann argues that the trial court should not have granted a directed verdict to appellees because the law of the case doctrine prohibited a directed verdict in their favor and because there was substantial, competent evidence on the record to support her claims. Appellees respond that some of Hann's claims were barred by either res judicata or the law of the case doctrine and that Hann failed to establish her claim for retaliation and discrimination because she did not suffer an adverse employment action.
Law of the Case Doctrine
. Hann argues that because we remarked in Hann I that "substantial justice was not done the party complaining" and then remanded the case for "proceedings consistent with the decision," we essentially stated that there was enough evidence to proceed to a jury. She also contends that because appellees did not appeal the denial of their directed verdict motions in the first trial they could not raise a directed verdict motion at the second trial.
. Appellees also contend that the law of the case doctrine applies but, instead, that it applies against Hann. They argue that Hann did not appeal the directed verdict granted to the township on her sex discrimination claim for events occurring before June 25, 1997. She also did not appeal her harassment claim against Sergeant Matthews. Consequently, in her second trial she could not present a claim for sex discrimination based on the township's failure to investigate her sexual harassment complaint against Sergeant Matthews.
. Under the law of the case doctrine, the "decision of a reviewing court * remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels." Pipe Fitters Union Local No. 392 v. Kokosing Constr. Co., Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St. 3d 214, 218 quoting Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St. 3d 1, 3. The rule is necessary to ensure consistency of results, b
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|