 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jackson v. Champaign National Bank & Trust Co.9/26/2000
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Appellant, M. Susan Jackson, filed this lawsuit against appellees, Champaign National Bank & Trust Co. ("the bank"); Michael J. Lamping, the bank president; and William Bostelman, appellant's former supervisor. In her complaint, appellant alleged sex discrimination and retaliation. The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granted appellees' motion for summary judgment on both claims. Appellant appeals the trial court's judgment and presents the following assignments of error:
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTED DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF SEX DISCRIMINATION.
2. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM OF RETALIATION.
Appellate court review of a summary judgment motion is de novo. Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997), 123 Ohio App.3d 158, 162. "As a result, [appellate] court appl the same summary judgment standard as the trial court and must affirm the trial court's judgment if any valid grounds are found on appeal to support it, even if the trial court failed to consider those grounds." Coventry Twp. v. Ecker (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 38, 41-42. "When reviewing a trial court's ruling on summary judgment, the court of appeals conducts an independent review of the record and stands in the shoes of the trial court." Mergenthal v. Star Banc Corp. (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 100, 103.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment may be granted when the moving party demonstrates that: (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 party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in its favor. Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 181, 183. The moving party bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and identifying the portions of the record that establish the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the non-moving party's claim. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292-293. After the moving party satisfies this initial burden, the non-moving party bears a reciprocal burden to respond by affidavit, or as otherwise provided in Civ.R. 56, and must set forth specific facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Civ.R. 56(E). If the non-moving party fails to so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. Civ.R. 56(E).
For the reasons that follow, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellant was hired by the bank in 1988 to work in its Urbana, Ohio office. During the next five years, she rose through the ranks from secretary to loan processor to loan processing supervisor to credit administration officer. Lamping joined the bank as president in 1993. In November 1994, appellant was promoted to Business Banking Officer. In that capacity, appellant handled commercial and consumer loans.
In late 1996, appellant met with her supervisor, Bruce Lauer, to develop her professional goals for 1997. Appellant's goals were memorialized in a one-page document entitled "1997 Goals for Sue Jackson." Among other things, the list of goals included attainment of $12 million in residential real estate loans, $1 million in new commercial loans, and $200,000 in new demand deposit accounts. Although appellant acknowledges that eight of the nine goals listed in the document were inde
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|