 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Corrections Corp. of America v. Human Relations Commission City of Youngstown9/21/2000
JUDGMENT: Affirmed.
Defendant-appellant Human Relations Commission City of Youngstown appeals from a judgment rendered by the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court vacating a compliance order against plaintiff-appellee Corrections Corporation of America and dismissing a complaint filed by Joseph Clark. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
Appellee operates a private prison located in Youngstown, Ohio. Joseph Clark ("Clark") was employed as a corrections officer with appellee. Shortly after he began to work there, he approached his superior officer, Captain Jackson, stating that he had a substance abuse problem. Clark requested help for his addiction to crack cocaine. Captain Jackson directed Clark to speak with security. Clark advised security officers that he had a recent relapse.
Subsequently, Clark spoke about his problem with Arlene Thompson, appellee's personnel coordinator. She notified the warden. The warden directed her to inform appellee's corporate office. The corporate office ordered that Clark be discharged as illegal drug use violated appellee's policy.
Clark filed a grievance with appellant alleging that he was discharged because of a disability in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A hearing was held on May 22, 1998. Appellant found that appellee unlawfully discriminated against Clark because of his disability. It ordered appellee to cease and desist from unlawful discrimination and to reinstate Clark with back-pay.
Pursuant to R.C. 2506.01, appellee appealed to the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court. The trial court adopted the magistrate's decision, vacating appellant's order and dismissing Clark's complaint. It held that Clark was not protected under the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA") because he was a current drug user not participating in a supervised rehabilitation program. This appeal followed.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
Appellant's sole assignment of error on appeal alleges:
"THE TRIAL COURT'S DECISION TO VACATE THE COMPLIANCE ORDER OF THE HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION ISSUED ON NOVEMBER 3, 1998, AND TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT OF JOSEPH CLARK IS NOT SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF RELIABLE, PROBATIVE AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS A MATTER OF LAW."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
R.C. Chapter 2506 provides the scope within which the Common Pleas Court may review a decision made by the Human Relations Commission. R.C. 2506.04 states that:
"The court may find that the order, adjudication, or decision is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record. Consistent with its findings, the court may affirm, reverse, vacate, or modify the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause to the officer or body appealed from with instructions to enter an order, adjudication, or decision consistent with the findings or opinion of the court. The judgment of the court may be appealed by any party on questions of law as provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, to the extent not in conflict with those rules, Chapter 2505 of Revised Code."
The trial court must give due deference to the agency's resolution of evidentiary conflicts, and the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency. See Adelman Real Estate Co. v. Gabanic (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d 689, 692.
An appeal to this court is more limited in scope and requires us to affirm the Common Pleas Court unless we find, as a matter of law, t
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|