 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hogan v. Field Container Corp.8/15/2001
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court.
JUDGMENT: Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Plaintiff-appellant Carolyn Sue Hogan ("Hogan") brings this appeal from the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County granting summary judgment to defendant-appellee Field Container Corp. ("Field").
Hogan began working for Field in 1973 in the finishing facility. She worked as an inspector checking and folding paper cartons in the Marion facility. During her employment, Hogan alleges that machine operators, lead men and supervisors subjected her and the other women to sexual harassment. After an incident with an operator, Richard Bowens ("Bowens"), Hogan left her position in August, 1999.
On January 31, 2000, Hogan filed a complaint against Field and Bowens alleging 1) sexual harassment by Bowens and the other male employees and supervisors at Field; 2) assault and battery by Bowens; 3) an intentional violation of public policy; 4) negligent retention of Bowens by Field; 5) violation of the Violence Against Women Act; 6) sex discrimination; 7) discriminatory discharge; and 8) retaliation for her testimony in another sexual harassment case brought against Field. Hogan later voluntarily dismissed Bowens as a defendant. On October 13, 2000, Field filed a motion for summary judgment. Hogan filed her memorandum contra the motion for summary judgment on November 14, 2000. On February 13, 2001, the trial court granted summary judgment to Field. It is from this judgment that Hogan appeals.
Hogan makes the following assignments of error.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment for Field on the sexual harassment claim.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the assault and battery claim and on the negligent retention claim.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the discriminatory discharge claim.
The trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the retaliation claim.
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, courts must proceed cautiously and award summary judgment only when appropriate. Franks v. The Lima News (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 408, 672 N.E.2d 245. "Civ.R. 56(C) provides that before summary judgment may be granted, it must be determined that (1) no genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party." State ex rel. Howard v. Ferreri (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 587, 589, 639 N.E.2d 1189, 1192. However, the nonmoving party must present evidence on any issue for which it bears the burden of production at trial. Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 570 N.E.2d 1095. When reviewing the judgment of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the case de novo. Franks, supra.
In the first assignment of error, Hogan argues that the trial court erred by dismissing her sexual harassment claim. R.C. 4112.02(A) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee because of the employee's gender with regard to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any other matter related to employment. A violation of R.C. 4112.02(A) can be established by showing a "hostile environment" harassment -- harassment that may not affect economic benefits, but has the purpose or effect of creating a hostile or abusive working environment. Ham
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|