 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sheridan v. DRS. Alperin & Ruch2/20/1997
JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED.
Michele Sheridan appeals from a judgment of the common pleas court directing a verdict in favor of Drs. Alperin and Ruch D.D.S., Inc., Dr. Scott Alperin, and Dr. Edward Ruch on her claim of sexual discrimination based upon pregnancy.
On May 17, 1996, Sheridan applied for a position as an office manager with Drs. Alperin and Ruch, D.D.S, Inc.. On May 20, 1996, Andrea Howard, the then current office manager, interviewed her and on May 25, 1996, Sheridan spent a day observing in the office. On both dates, Howard stressed to Sheridan the importance of office confidentiality.
On the evening of Friday, May 28, 1996, Howard extended an offer of employment to Sheridan on behalf of Drs. Alperin and Ruch. Sheridan indicated that she wanted the Memorial Day weekend to think about the offer but agreed that she would contact Howard the following Tuesday with her decision. She then informed Howard for the first time of her pregnancy and, after some discussion, they agreed that Sheridan could train another employee, Debi, to substitute for her as office manager while on maternity leave.
When Sheridan phoned Howard on the following Tuesday, June 1, 1996, with the intention of accepting the offer, Howard informed her that the doctors had decided to withdraw the offer of employment because other employees in the office learned that Sheridan had been offered the position, her salary, and the arrangement regarding her maternity leave.
Thereafter, Sheridan filed this action against Drs. Alperin and Ruch, D.D.S., Inc., Dr Alperin, and Dr. Ruch, alleging she had been discriminated against because she was pregnant.
A jury trial commenced on May 8, 1996. However, at the close of Sheridan's case in chief, the trial court granted appellees' motion for a directed verdict.
Sheridan now appeals the trial court's granting of such motion and assigns the following error for our review:
I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR IN GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR A DIRECTED VERDICT WHERE THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO ARTICULATE A LEGITIMATE NON-DISCRIMINATORY REASON FOR FAILING TO HIRE THE PLAINTIFF.
Sheridan contends that since she proved a prima facie case of sexual discrimination and the appellees failed to rebut it by offering a valid reason for not hiring her, the trial court erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict.
The appellees maintain, however, the trial court properly granted the motion for a directed verdict because they did, in fact, articulate a non-discriminatory reason for not hiring her, i.e., she breached office confidentiality, and she failed to demonstrate this reason to be merely pretextual.
The issue for our determination then is whether the trial court erred in granting the motion for a directed verdict where Sheridan established a prima facie case of discrimination, and Drs. Alperin and Ruch offered a nondiscriminatory reason for not hiring her, which she failed to demonstrate as pretextual.
Civil Rule 50(A) sets forth the grounds upon which a trial court may grant a motion for directed verdict. The rule provides at section (A)(4):
When granted on the evidence. When a motion for a directed verdict has ben properly made, and the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue.
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.
|
|