 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelson v. Marymount Hospital8/17/2000
that the appellant was not placed on the Michael Pine project due to her lack of typing skills, making her an unqualified person to fill the position. Additionally, even though the appellant was not given the title of HDA and placed on the Michael Pine project, she still obtained her goal of becoming a coder.
The appellant counters the appellee's argument by asserting that the appellee's reason is pretextual because the evidence reveals that the department managers continually discriminated against other black employees.
This court reviews the lower court's granting of summary judgments de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 102; Zemcik v. La Pine Truck Sales & Equipment (1998), 124 Ohio App.3d 581, 585. The Ohio Supreme Court recently restated the appropriate test in Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 367, 369-70 as follows:
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the nonmoving party, said party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor. Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 679, 653 N.E.2d 1196, paragraph three of the syllabus. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293, 662 N.E.2d 264, 273-274.
Once the moving party satisfies its burden, the nonmoving party "may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings, but the party's response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Civ.R. 56(E). Mootispaw v. Eckstein (1996), 76 Ohio St.3d 383, 385, 667 N.E.2d 1197. Doubts must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party. Murphy v. Reynoldsburg (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-59, 604 N.E.2d 138.
To prevail in an employment discrimination case, a plaintiff must prove discriminatory intent. Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578. A litigant may use either the direct or the indirect method of proof. Byrnes v. LCI Communication Holdings Co.(1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 125. Ohio courts apply these methods in accordance with federal law. Barker v. Scovill, Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 146. Under the direct method of proof, a plaintiff may establish a case of discrimination by presenting evidence, of any nature, to show that an employer more likely than not was motivated by discriminatory intent. Mauzy, supra. A causal link or nexus between the discriminatory statements or conduct and the prohibited act of discrimination must be established by the plaintiff. Byrnes, supra.
The appellant herein has not sought to establish her discrimination claim with the direct method of proof. Rather, she has sought to establish her claim under the indirect method of proof, which permits her to establish discriminatory intent through the analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792.
In order to establish discrimination based upon race, this court has held that a litigant must produce some evidence showing race discrimination under the following elements: 1) plaintiff is a member of a racial minority; 2) plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action; 3) plaintiff was qualified for the position; and, 4) a comparable, non-protected person was treated more favorably. Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 378, cit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|