 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Johnson v. Central State University3/7/2000
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
APPEAL from the Ohio Court of Claims.
Appellant, E. Marlene Johnson, was employed by Central State University ("CSU"), from February 1988 until she was laid off in February 1996, from her position as the director of materials management. At the time of appellant's termination, twenty percent of the personnel at CSU were laid off as the result of a financial exigency plan due to the financial crisis facing CSU in 1995 and 1996.
Appellant filed a complaint against CSU in the Ohio Court of Claims alleging breach of contract, discrimination based upon gender and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The matter was bifurcated and tried on the issue of liability in October 1998. The Ohio Court of Claims denied appellant's contract claim, determined that appellant established a prima facie case of discrimination but found the prima facie case was rebutted by legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the adverse employment actions. The court found that appellant had failed to prove that the legitimate reason was a pretext for discrimination and denied her claim. The court also denied her claim for emotional distress based upon a lack of sufficient evidence of intentional or negligent conduct.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal and raised the following assignment of error:
IT WAS ERROR FOR THE COURT OF CLAIMS TO DETERMINE CSU MET ITS BURDEN OF PROVIDING A LEGITIMATE NONDISRIMINATORY REASON FOR JOHNSON'S TERMINATION.
In her assignment of error, appellant does not contest the rulings by the trial court that denied her contract claim and her negligent infliction of emotional distress claim, but does contend that the trial court erred in finding that CSU met its burden of providing a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for appellant's termination.
R.C. 4112.02(A) prohibits gender discrimination and provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
(A) For any employer, because of the * sex * of any person, to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment.
The definition of employer in R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) includes "the state, any political subdivision of the state." Thus, the state is prohibited from discriminating against its employees on the basis of gender.
Ohio courts have held that, when interpreting R.C. 4112, it is appropriate to look at analogous federal statutes. See Wooten v. Columbus, Div. of Water (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 326, 334. "In order to prevail in an employment discrimination case, the plaintiff must prove discriminatory intent." Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 583. Both a direct and indirect method of proof, may be utilized to establish discriminatory intent in a discrimination case. Appellant argues that the Court of Claims erred in its application of the indirect method. Absent direct evidence of discriminatory intent, a plaintiff may seek to establish discriminatory intent indirectly through the analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, followed by the Ohio Supreme Court in Plumbers & Steamfitters Commt. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 197.
In order to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, appellant was required to demonstrate that: (1) she was a member of a statutorily protected class; (2) that she was discharged; (3) that she was qualified for the position; and (4)
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.
|
|