 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeager v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission6/28/2002
. This is an administrative appeal taken from the decision of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas, which determined that appellee, the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("the OCRC"), did not act in an unlawful, irrational, arbitrary and/or capricious manner by failing to issue a probable cause determination that Key Bank engaged in religious discrimination by utilizing its check cashing procedures.
. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. On November 8, 1999, appellant filed a charge with the OCRC alleging religious discrimination against Key Bank. According to his affidavit, appellant was a Christian Fundamentalist, whose religious beliefs prevented him from being identified by either a number, such as a social security , or a mark, such as a finger/thumb print. Appellant believed that on May 15, 1999, he was unlawfully discriminated against by a place of public accommodation when Key Bank denied him the opportunity to complete a financial transaction and cash a check on the basis of his religion:
. " fter correctly endorsing the back of the check and giving it to the [Key Bank] teller *, she stated that I needed to provide her with a driver's license and a pictured worker I.D. I then provided her with my lawful Ohio Driver's License for identification, and a pictured employee card from my employer. She then, without my permission and knowledge, made unlawful use, as a form of identification, my Social Security Number by disclosing it in writing across the face of this check. *
. " * This teller then requested me to take my right hand and saturate my thumb with ink and make my thumbprint on the check. I refused. She stated it was `bank policy' that all non-Key Bank customers be required to provide a fingerprint. I told her that I am exercising a sincerely held religious belief that prevents me from doing this."
. On April 27, 2000, the OCRC determined that there was no probable cause for appellant's charge. As such, appellant requested reconsideration of the OCRC determination. Apparently, a hearing was held on June 8, 2000. Then, on September 25, 2000, the OCRC adopted the original recommendation of no probable cause.
. In accordance with R.C. 4112.06, on October 24, 2000, appellant filed a petition with the trial court seeking judicial review of the OCRC's determination that it was not probable that Key Bank had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices under R.C. Chapter 4112.
. The record of the proceedings before the OCRC was filed with the trial court, and the matter was fully briefed. On July 27, 2001, the trial court determined that the OCRC did not act in an unlawful, irrational, arbitrary and/or capricious manner by failing to issue a probable cause determination. It is from this judgment appellant appeals, submitting a single assignment of error for our review:
. "The trial court erred in finding Appellee's `not probable' determination and consequent refusal to issue an R.C. Chapter 4112 complaint to be `lawful, rational and not arbitrary or capricious."
. In his lone assignment of error, appellant submits two separate issues for review. First, appellant contends that since the OCRC determination ignored the Free Exercise Clause, the trial court erred in finding its determination to be lawful. According to appellant, Key Bank's social security and thumbprint identification policy, which applied only to non-customers who sought to have checks cashed, impermissibly forces him to choose between adhering to his religious beliefs and forfeiting the public accommodation of cashing his check, or abandoning his religious beliefs in order to have his check cashed. Appellant
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.
|
|