 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Stair v. Phoenix Presentations12/23/1996
WALSH, Presiding Judge.
Plaintiffs-appellants, William Stair and Tony Miller, appeal a decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Phoenix Presentations' Inc. ("Phoenix") in an age discrimination case.
Appellants are former employees of Phoenix, an Ohio corporation whose business involves the design, manufacture, installation, and refurbishment of exhibits used at trade shows and conventions. Phoenix employs a diverse group of skilled workers who perform a variety of duties.
The exhibit industry in which Phoenix competes is a seasonal one which revolves around trade show and convention business cycles. Phoenix is normally busy during the winter, but experiences a decrease in business during the summer, consistent with the trade show industry.
In early 1995, Phoenix was anticipating the receipt of two large construction contracts, although neither client had committed to hire Phoenix. Phoenix did not have any new construction orders at that time and its employees were kept busy by completing miscellaneous tasks unrelated to their normal work duties. Because business was slow, Phoenix management decided to lay off several employees until business improved.
On February 20, 1995, Phoenix laid off eleven employees. Among those laid off were Stair and Miller. Stair, who was sixty years old at the time of the layoff, was hired by Phoenix in 1988, when he was fifty-three. Stair was employed in the warehouse/shipping and receiving department. Miller, who was fifty-five years old at the time of the layoff, was hired by Phoenix in 1991 when he was fifty-one. Miller was employed as a refurbishment carpenter.
A short time after the February 1995 layoff, Phoenix obtained a contract for one of the large construction jobs that it had anticipated earlier. The job was classified as a new construction order that involved the construction of trade show exhibits. At that time, Phoenix recalled three bench carpenters and one carpentry helper. Soon thereafter, Phoenix recalled another bench carpenter and, later, a painter. Several months later, Phoenix recalled another helper ansa machinist. Stair and Miller were not among the employees who were recalled by Phoenix as of August 1995. Phoenix did not hire any new employees during the layoff period.
On August 16, 1995, Stair and Miller fled a complaint against Phoenix, alleging that they had been discriminated against because of their age since they were the oldest Phoenix employees who were laid off and not recalled. When business increased in September 1995, Phoenix recalled Stair, but he declined to return to work. Miller was recalled in November 1995, but he also declined to return to Phoenix.
Discovery was conducted and several depositions were taken. On March 22, 1996, Phoenix filed a motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted the motion in an opinion and order of judgment filed on May 16, 1996. It is from this judgment that appellants now appeal, setting forth the following assignments of error:
"Assignment of Error No. 1:
"The trial court erred in granting Defendant-Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment by concluding that the statements demonstrating age bias did not rise to the level of direct evidence of age discrimination.
"Assignment of Error No. 2:
"The trial court erred in granting Defendant-Appellee's Motion for Summary Judgment by ignoring substantial indirect evidence of age discrimination.
"Assignment of Error No. 3:
"The trial court erred in granting Defendant-Appellee's
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|