 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Detzel v. Wellman2/9/2001
DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Ottawa County Court of Common Pleas which granted appellee, Brush Wellman, Inc. ("Brush Wellman"), summary judgment against appellant, David Detzel, on his discrimination action made pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). For the reasons that follow, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
Appellant raises the following on appeal as his sole assignment of error:
"THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED SUBSTANTIAL, PREJUDICIAL, AND REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING APPELLEE'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY ERRONEOUSLY FINDING THAT APPELLEE'S ARTICULATED REASONS FOR TAKING ADVERSE EMPLOYMENT ACTIONS AGAINST APPELLANT WERE NOT PRETEXT FOR DISABILITY/HANDICAP DISCRIMINATION."
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant filed a complaint on May 29, 1998 and an amended complaint on September 17, 1998, against Brush Wellman, pursuant to Section 107(a) of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") (Section 12117, Title 42 U.S. Code) and Section 706 of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Section 2000e-5, Title 42 U.S. Code), and R.C. Chapter 4112. Specifically, appellant asserted that Section 12102(2), Title 42 U.S. Code applied to his situation, i.e. that he had "a record of such impairment" and was "regarded as having such an impairment" by Brush Wellman. Appellant also sued Brush Wellman for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On October 20, 1999, Brush Wellman filed a motion for summary judgment and argued the following: (1) Brush Wellman was justified in terminating appellant's employment because appellant was unable to do his job and had poor work performance; (2) appellant was not disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (3) appellant failed to raise any issue of fact suggesting that Brush Wellman regarded appellant as being disabled or that he had a record of being disabled; (5) appellant failed to show that, but for his perceived disability, he was "otherwise qualified" for his position; and (6) appellant failed to establish his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The trial court entered judgment in Brush Wellman's favor on January 27, 2000. Specifically, the trial court held that appellant failed to prove his disabled status under "a record of impairment." The trial court, however, did find that there existed a genuine issue of material fact concerning whether Brush Wellman "perceived" appellant as having disability, i.e., a mental disability. This finding was based on the fact that a Brush Wellman employee suggested that appellant seek counseling from a psychologist and that specific remarks were made to appellant concerning his inability to perform a certain class of jobs, e.g., heavy industry or factory jobs. With respect to the issue of whether appellant was "otherwise qualified" to perform the "essential functions" of his job, the trial court found that Brush Wellman had failed to demonstrate what were the "essential functions" of appellant's position in the cast shop. Without knowing what appellant's "essential functions" were, the trial court held that there was a genuine issue regarding whether appellant was "otherwise qualified" for the furnace operator position in the cast shop. Accordingly, the trial court held that appellant established a prima facie case of disability discrimination.
The trial court then considered whether Brush Wellman had proffered sufficient non-discriminatory reasons to warrant appellant's discharge and whether appellant had demonstrated that Brush Wellman's proffered reasons for discharge were a mere pretext. In its analysis, the trial court relied on Plumbers & Steamfitte
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|