 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Noday v. Mahoning County Sheriff2/11/2002
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded
. Plaintiff-appellant, Tammy S. Noday, appeals from a decision of the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court dismissing her sex discrimination claim against defendant-appellee, Mahoning County.
. Appellant began employment as a deputy sheriff with appellee's sheriff's department on June 2, 1994. Her employment was terminated on August 28, 1998.
. Appellant filed a charge of sex discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission ("the commission"). On May 20, 1999, the Akron regional office of the commission issued an order concluding that it was not probable that appellee had engaged in unlawful discriminatory practices under R.C. Chapter 4112 and dismissed appellant's claim. The commission stated that the evidence did not substantiate that appellant had been discharged or subjected to differential treatment because of her sex or in retaliation. The commission stated that the order was based upon evidence indicating that appellant had been discharged for refusing a direct order of her superior and violating department policy resulting in a criminal indictment.
. The commission order noted that it was a final order subject to judicial review under R.C. 4112.06. However, appellant did not pursue judicial review of the order. Rather, appellant filed a civil action against appellee in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, alleging sex discrimination. Appellant's complaint set forth two counts. The first set forth a statutory cause of action pursuant to R.C. 4112.01 et seq. and R.C. 4112.99. The second set forth a cause of action for wrongful termination of employment in violation of public policy.
. Appellee filed a motion to dismiss/motion for summary judgment. In its motion, appellee argued that Count 1 of appellant's complaint should be dismissed, arguing that appellant's sole remedy was by judicial review of the commission's order pursuant to R.C. 4112.06, which she had failed to pursue, and that she could not bring an independent sex discrimination action pursuant to R.C. 4112.99 after her claim had been dismissed by the commission. Concerning Count 2, appellee argued that since appellant was not an at-will employee, she could not pursue a wrongful discharge claim under the public-policy exception.
. On September 22, 2000, the trial court sustained appellee's motion and dismissed appellant's case. This appeal followed.
. Appellant's first assignment of error states:
. "The trial court improperly found that an election of remedies requirement attached to the gender discrimination claims brought pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 4112.99. Election of remedies attaches only to age discrimination claims brought pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 4112.99."
. The question presented by appellant's first assignment of error is whether she was barred from filing her complaint with the trial court pursuant to R.C. 4112.99, because she had previously filed an administrative claim pursuant to R.C. 4112.05.
. R.C. 4112.02(A) makes it an unlawful discriminatory practice " or any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, handicap, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment." A person alleging sex discrimination has two statutory methods for relief. Pursuant to R.C. 4112.05, an aggrieved person may file a charge with the commission to pursue an administrative remedy.
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.
|
|