 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gliner v. Saint-Gobain Norton Industrial Ceramics Corporation8/9/2000
Civil procedure - Motion for directed verdict - Civ.R. 50 - Trial court's denial of defendant's motion for directed verdict upheld, when.
Submitted May 23, 2000
Appellants Marina Gliner, a product engineer, Betty Jane Nowac, an accounting manager, Randi Deluga, a cost accountant, and Wilma Joiner, a traffic manager, brought gender discrimination actions under R.C. 4112.02(A) against their former employer Saint-Gobain/Norton Industrial Ceramics Corporation ("Saint-Gobain"). Saint-Gobain is a French corporation headquartered in Paris, France, with multinational operations in Europe, Japan, and the United States.
The case went to trial. The court of appeals' opinion summarized the evidence presented in ninety-seven pages of cogent and comprehensive prose, which we hereby incorporate by reference. See 1999 WL 380434.
Upon the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned the following verdicts: (1) in favor of appellant Wilma Joiner on her pay discrimination claim for $20,000 in compensatory damages and $140,000 in punitive damages and in favor of Saint-Gobain on her discriminatory termination claim, (2) in favor of appellant Randi Deluga on her pay discrimination claim for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, (3) in favor of appellant Marina Gliner on both her pay discrimination and discriminatory termination claims for $75,000 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages, and (4) in favor of appellant Betty Jane Nowac on both her pay discrimination and discriminatory termination claims for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The jury also found Saint-Gobain to be liable for appellants' attorney fees, which the trial court assessed at $175,000, based on a stipulation of the parties. The trial court ordered prejudgment interest on the compensatory damages awards, also based on a stipulation of the parties. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed the judgments in favor of appellants and entered judgment notwithstanding the verdicts in favor of Saint-Gobain on all claims.
The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal.
Civ.R. 50(A)(4) provides that when a party moves for a directed verdict and "the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue." In this case, the trial court denied St. Gobain's motion for a directed verdict.
The court of appeals, after a de novo review of the evidence, determined that reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and found that the trial court erred by not granting a directed verdict for St. Gobain. We disagree as a matter of law.
There is unquestionably significant evidence in the voluminous record before us that tends to show that Saint-Gobain did not act in a discriminatory manner. However, there is also ample evidence to enable reasonable minds to find for the appellants. Whether we would have found for appellants or for Saint-Gobain is immaterial; it is sufficient that there is adequate evidence for reasonable minds to find for either. O'Day v. Webb (1972), 29 Ohio St.2d 215, 58 O.O.2d 424, 280 N.E.2d 896, paragraph four of the syllabus; see Pangle v. Joyce (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 389, 391, 667 N.E.2d 1202, 1203. Accordingly, the trial court ruled correctly and the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court's denial of a motion for directed ver
Page 1 2 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|