 |
 |
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
at her termination was objectively imminent. Appellant speculated that her evaluation and transfer were a means to drive her out of the company and that a decrease in her pay was inevitable. The evidence, however, points to the contrary. As detailed above, appellant failed to establish that her evaluation was a product of discrimination. Her evaluation, therefore, cannot provide evidence of constructive discharge. See Yates v. Avco Corp. (C.A.6, 1987), 819 F.2d 630, 637 (to establish constructive discharge based on discrimination, there must be an underlying action for discrimination). Moreover, appellant's pay and benefits were not decreased, and she was going to be performing the same type of job function at the Plain City branch. Furthermore, appellant testified that she decided to find another job in December 1997, and she had interviewed at Chase Manhattan weeks before she even learned about the transfer to Plain City. There is simply no evidence that she was constructively discharged.
Appellant's first assignment of error is overruled.
In her second assignment of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred when it granted summary judgment for appellees on appellant's retaliation claim. Appellant contends that the trial court improperly concluded that she had not engaged in protected activity.
Under R.C. 4112.02(I), it is an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(I) For any person to discriminate in any manner against any other person because that person has opposed any unlawful discriminatory practice defined in this section or because that person has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in any investigation, proceeding, or hearing under sections 4112.01 to 4112.07 of the Revised Code. When analyzing retaliation claims, Ohio courts rely on federal case law. Chandler v. Empire Chem., Inc., Midwest Rubber Custom Mixing Div. (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 396, 402.
To prove a claim of retaliation, a plaintiff must establish the following three elements: "(1) that she engaged in protected activity, (2) that she was subjected to an adverse employment action, and (3) that a causal link exists between a protected activity and the adverse action." Peterson v. Buckeye Steel Casings (1999), 133 Ohio App.3d 715, 727. "Once a plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case, it is the defendant's burden to articulate a legitimate reason for its action." Id. If the defendant meets its burden, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the articulated reason was a pretext for discrimination. Id.
"In order to engage in a protected opposition activity * a plaintiff must make an overt stand against suspected illegal discriminatory action." Comiskey v. Automotive Industry Action Group (E.D.Mich. 1999), 40 F.Supp.2d 877, 898. " vague charge of discrimination in an internal letter or memorandum is insufficient to constitute opposition to an unlawful employment practice." Booker v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Inc. (C.A.6, 1989), 879 F.2d 1304, 1313.
The adverse action need not result in pecuniary loss, but it must materially affect the terms and conditions of plaintiff's employment. Peterson, at 727. Factors that courts consider when determining whether an employment action was materially adverse include "termination of employment, a demotion evidenced by a decrease in wage or salary, a less distinguished title, a material loss of benefits, significantly diminished material responsibilities, or other indices that might be unique to a particular situation." Crady v. Liberty Nat'l Bank and Trust Co. (C.A.7, 1993), 993 F.2d 132, 136.
Appellant's retaliation claim fails for two reasons. First, based
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.
|
|