 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Mack v. B.F. Goodrich Co.5/15/1997
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED
This appeal arises from a complaint filed by plaintiff- appellant Margaret Mack ("Mack") against defendant-appellee B.F. Goodrich Co. ("BFG") for wrongful discharge as a result of age discrimination and retaliatory discharge based on sexual harassment allegations she made about a supervisor. After discovery was completed, BFG moved for summary judgment which the trial court granted, and it is from this order which Mack now appeals.
Mack began her employment with BFG in 1965 after graduating from college with a degree in biology. By 1974, Mack had been promoted to Senior Research and Development Assistant. In 1980, Mack accepted a transfer to the thermal analyst division. Mack submits this transfer was a result of sexual harassment allegations she made against her supervisor. Mack worked in the thermal analyst division until her dismissal in 1993.
During the period of Mack's employment, BFG underwent several structural changes. By 1992, BFG had been reduced from a three billion dollar company to a two billion dollar company by spinning off its tire division and another division. By December 1992, a new vice president took charge of the research division which included the thermal analyst division where Mack worked. The vice president determined the company could not justify its current expenditures in research, with BFG's overall reduction in size, so she decided to reduce costs by laying off between 34 and 37 employees.
As a thermal analyst, Mack's job included chemical testing. Her supervisor was Caren Quisenberry, who worked in another location, but also did chemical testing. Quisenberry had a degree in chemistry and supervised the flame lab where a procedure known as fire science testing was performed. Mack's job responsibilities did not include fire science testing.
BFG created a core group to determine who should be laid off. This group determined that BFG's thermal analysis business was going to decrease because the two divisions were spun off. This left them with deciding between Quisenberry and Mack, because they were the two people who did the thermal analysis. The group ultimately chose Quisenberry because she was not only an experienced thermal analyst, with a chemical degree, but she was also experienced in fire science testing. On November, 8, 1993, Mack was notified that she was being released and as a result she filed a complaint.
Mack's first assignment of error states as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING BFG'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MRS. MACK'S CLAIM FOR AGE DISCRIMINATION.
Mack argues she presented a prima facie case of age discrimination. She also claims BFG's reason for discharging her was unsupported by any evidence and, therefore, just a pretext for the wrongful discharge.
BFG maintains because this is a reduction in force case, Mack was required to produce direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence of discrimination but did not. Furthermore, BFG submits the reason for Mack's dismissal was not because of her age, but rather because she could not perform fire science testing.
Analysis of a discrimination claim is similar under Ohio and federal law. Republic Steel Corp. v. Hailey (1986), 30 Ohio App.3d 103, 106. The standards for evaluating discriminatory discharge claims were established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792. First, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination. Defendant then must articulate "some legitimate nondiscriminatory reason" for the employee's termination. The burden then shifts back to plaintiff to prove that defendant's reason for termination was fa
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.
|
|