 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Scott v. University of Toledo3/9/2000
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
In July 1997, Christine Scott filed a complaint in the Court of Claims of Ohio, naming her previous employer, The University of Toledo, as the lone defendant. Ms. Scott alleged that the university violated her civil rights, unlawfully discriminating against her based upon her physical "disability" or "handicap." The litigation was brought pursuant to both state civil rights law, R.C. Chapter 4112, and federal law, Section 12102 et seq., Title 42, U.S.Code, commonly referred to as the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). For purposes of this case, the laws are substantively comparable. Sadinsky v. EBCO Manufacturing Co. (June 22, 1999), Franklin App. No. 98AP-981, unreported.
Ms. Scott's complaint alleged that the university unlawfully terminated her employment based upon her physical disability, a condition resulting from a work-related injury; specifically, she injured her arm while employed as a custodial worker, a position classified as "heavy duty." She further claimed that the university failed to comply with discrimination laws, which require certain employers to make "reasonable accommodations" for handicapped employees under certain circumstances. The accommodation to which she claimed entitlement was appointment to a "light duty" clerical position for which she was qualified, having passed the required civil service examination for that position. Ms. Scott's complaint essentially alleged that the university's failure to make a reasonable accommodation occurred when it failed to hire her to such a position and, instead, selected someone else for the job.
In February 1999, the parties submitted the case to the trial court based upon stipulations of fact. In May 1999, the court ultimately rendered a decision granting judgment for the university.
Christine Scott (hereinafter "appellant") has timely appealed, assigning four errors for our consideration:
1. The Court of Claims erred in holding that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case because she was no longer qualified for the custodial position which she held prior to her injury, with or without a reasonable accommodation.
2. The Court of Claims erred in finding that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case because she failed to propose the requested accommodation to defendant prior to being terminated.
3. The Court of Claims erred in finding that it would impose an undue hardship upon defendant if it were required to grant an unpaid medical leave to plaintiff for a reasonable period such as six or twelve months until a job opening became available which plaintiff had the qualifications and physical ability to perform.
4. The Court of Claims erred in finding that the action of defendant in terminating plaintiff was not in violation of the Ohio Civil Rights Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act.
We glean the underlying facts giving rise to this litigation from those stipulations submitted by the parties and expressly relied upon by the trial court in its decision:
* [Appellant] was employed by [the university] as a custodial worker from March 5, 1993, to March 11, 1996. [Appellant] formerly worked in a classified state position for which the terms and conditions of employment were provided under a collective bargaining agreement with the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO, Local 4530. Under the state classification, the position of custodial worker is classified as heavy-duty.
On September 12, 1995, [appellant] was injured on the job when a plastic light diffuser fell from the ceiling, striking her right arm. On September 26, 1995, [a
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|