 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Finan v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.3/10/2000
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed and Cause Remanded
Plaintiff-appellant, Patricia A. Finan, appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas entering a directed verdict in favor of defendant-appellee, The Union Central Life Insurance Co., on Finan's sex-discrimination claim brought pursuant to R.C. Chapter 4112. For the reasons that follow, we reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the cause for a new trial.
Finan began working for Union Central in 1982, as director of pension sales. In 1986, she was promoted to assistant vice-president and was later promoted to regional sales vice-president in 1991. While she was in the position of regional sales vice-president, Finan was responsible for the largest sales region in the country.
In 1993, Union Central President Rick Kremer asked Finan to accept a position in the company's annuity sales department. Finan reluctantly accepted the position at the beginning of 1994, and while she was in the annuity department, sales of annuities increased dramatically. Nevertheless, in November 1994, Finan was informed that economic considerations required that she be terminated from the annuities position. Though she was offered another position in the company, the position that she was offered would have entailed a decrease in salary of approximately $27,000 per year. Finan declined the offer of the new position and left the company.
In June 1996, Finan filed the discrimination claim. The trial court denied a series of summary-judgment motions filed on behalf of Union Central, and the case proceeded to a jury trial in March 1999. At the close of Finan's case-in-chief, the trial court granted Union Central's motion for a directed verdict, and this appeal followed.
In her first assignment of error, Finan contends that the trial court erred in granting Union Central's motion for a directed verdict. We agree.
Pursuant to Civ.R. 50, the trial court is to grant a motion for a directed verdict only when, construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, it concludes that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, which is adverse to the nonmoving party. To establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination and thereby defeat a motion for a directed verdict, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the employer more likely than not was motivated in its employment action by a discriminatory intent.
Discriminatory intent on the part of an employer may be proven by direct evidence, or it may be inferred from evidence by application of the analytical framework formulated by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green. Thus, in the absence of direct evidence of discrimination, the plaintiff may establish a prima facie case by proof (1) that the plaintiff was a member of a protected class, (2) that she suffered an adverse employment action, (3) that she was qualified for the position that she lost, and (4) that she was replaced by someone outside the protected class or that "a comparable non-protected person was treated better." If direct evidence of discrimination is presented, however, the McDonnell Douglas analysis need not be undertaken.
In the case at bar, Finan adduced direct evidence of Union Central's discriminatory intent, thus precluding the granting of a directed verdict. In Finan's case-in-chief, she offered the testimony of a co-worker, Elizabeth Seicshnaydre, who testified concerning the statements of Jeff Wheatley, a Union Central vice-president. According to Seicshnaydre, Wheatley had stated that Finan had been terminated from the ann
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.
|
|