Cleveland Law Library Weblog

Our Latest Podcast Features Benesch Partner Joseph Gross on the ADA Amendments Act

Our latest podcast features Joseph Gross, Esq., a partner at the law firm of Benesch Friedlander, on the topic of the recent amendments to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Gross outlines significant changes in the amendments and proposed EEOC regulations regarding the definitions of the phrases "substantially limits" and "major life activities." He also provides some advice for employers and employees on what to expect in the workplace. Mr. Gross is certified by the Ohio State Bar Association as a specialist in the areas of labor and employment law and serves as the President of our Law Library's Board of Directors.

Ohio Civil Rights Commission Creates Hall of Fame

The Ohio Civil Rights Commission has created a brand new Hall of Fame and inducted 10 citizens who the OCRC recognizes as having "made significant contributions to the progress of the civil rights and equal justice in the State of Ohio." Two former Ohio Judges made the list: former Supreme Court of Ohio Justice Robert M. Duncan and former Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Carl B. Stokes. Justice Duncan was the first African-American on the Supreme Court.

Ohio's 5th Circuit Issues Opinion on Reasonable Maternity Leave

In an interesting decision, the 5th District Court of Appeals held in Nursing Care Mgmt. of Am. Inc. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm. (Case No. 08CA0030) that, notwithstanding an employee's length of service or an employer policy that provides otherwise, employers are required to provide a reasonable length of time for unpaid maternity leave. This decision reversed the trial court's decision and affirmed the Ohio Civil Rights Commission's decision in favor of a woman who was discharged when she needed pregnancy leave but had not worked long enough to qualify under her employer's policy. The Court concluded that her termination constituted "unlawful sex discrimination" in  violation of OAC 4112-05-05(G)(2). The Court also relied on the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in 42 U.S.C. sec. 2000 et seq., as well as Ohio's PDA contained in ORC 4112.02.

EEOC Private Claims Went Up 15.2 % in 2008

According to the EEOC's FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report, private EEOC charges were up 15.2% over 2007 figures. That means that more and more employees have been claiming discrimination and/or harassment at work. Thanks for the tip on this information go to KJK's Ohio Employer's Law Blog, which predicts that the figures will go up again in 2009.

2-Year SOL Applies in Ohio Section 1983 Actions

Is it finally resolved once and for all? According to the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in Nadra v. Mbah, Case No. 2008-Ohio-3918, Ohio's 2-year personal injury statute of limitations contained in O.R.C. 2305.10 applies to civil rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983. This opinion agreed with the trial court but not the Franklin County Court of Appeals, which had held that the plaintiff's claims were not barred because they were subject to the 4-year residual personal injury statute of limitations contained in O.R.C. sec. 2305.09(D). Justice Pfeifer's dissent envisions a 'Kiss Me Kate'' like situation where the majority court was convinced to believe that the sky was not blue in disregarding that a 2, rather than a 4-year statute of limitations was applicable. The underlying case arose when a mother whose children were removed from her custody sued 2 employees from Franklin County Childrens Services who were involved in the removal and a child-abuse complaint.

Age Discrimination Plaintiffs Recovering More Often Locally

The Plain Dealer reports that age discrimination plaintiffs are recovering more often locally. The latest award of $7 million for a 58 year old employee from Wachovia is less than half the $16 million dollars that Aurora native Tommy Morgan won last year against New York Life Insurance Co. Experts who have been studying the trend point to age sterotypes called ageism as the pattern in many of the cases for suits by employees in their 50's and 60's.

Post Office Can Schedule Jewish Worker on the Sabbath

The Plain Dealer reports that on Monday, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in Tepper v. Potter (Case No. 06-4182 on PACER), holding that a Jewish postal worker could not prove his allegations that he was discriminated against and that his employer failed to accomodate him. Mr. Tepper had sued in federal district court in Cleveland (Case No. 04-00343 on PACER), claiming claimed that his employer forced him to work on Saturdays, when he wanted to observe the Sabbath. Competing twists in the case were that the post office fully accomodated Tepper's religious wishes until it reduced staff at Tepper's station, the Union voted to end Tepper's scheduling accomodation (since its members were pulling more and more Saturday shifts to cover for Tepper), and the new union contract dropped the accomodation. Since there were still ways for Tepper to take Saturdays off (by using leave or switching with other staff), the court held that Tepper was not unfairly treated or disciplined.

Shaker Heights Settles Disability Suit

The Plain Dealer reports that the City of Shaker Heights has settled a federal case (Case No.1:06-cv-02568 on PACER), alleging that various City-owned public areas are inaccessible to people with disabilities.  The Complaint, which was filed on October 24, 2006, alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. sec. 12181 et seq. and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. As part of the settlement, Shaker Heights will pay $50,000 in attorney fees to the plaintiffs' attorneys and make 53 renovations at various locations in the City, including City Hall, the Community Building, the Main Library, the Service Center, a fire station, Thornton Park, the Shaker Family Center, the Police Department/Municipal Court and city-owned property housing a Starbucks. The renovation projects run the gamet from mounting stickers to making restrooms accessible. The dockets available from PACER show that this suit is only one of many other suits that the plaintiffs, Bonnie Kramer and Disabled Patriots of America, have brought against various organizations, including RTA, Discount Drug Mart, Days Inn, and various malls, including Pavilion Mall, Crocker Park, Middleburg Towne Square, Parmatown, Legacy Village, Golden Gate and others.

Ohio Supreme Court Declines to Recognize Common Law Action for Age Discrimination

In Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 2007-Ohio-4921, the Ohio Supreme Court recently held that there is no non-statutory cause of action for age discrimination. The Court held that Ohio's age discrimination statutes under R.C. Chapter 4112 provide a "full range of remedies" for employees who bring suit for wrongful termination based on age. Those remedies include a cease and desist order, reinstatement with back pay, restored seniority, fringe benefit credit, compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorney fees. Click here to read the Court's press release.

Woodmere Village in Civil Rights Controversies

The Village of Woodmere is now embroiled in two civil rights controversies involving both white and African American plaintiffs. In the first case (Case No. 1:07-cv-01541-DCN filed 5/25/07 on PACER), the United States claims that the Village of Woodmere unlawfully terminated two former white police officers named Amy Mengay and Tim Ellis because of their race in violation of 42 USC 2000e-5. Mengay and Ellis have both filed motions to intervene in the case. Newsnet5.com reports that the Village of Woodmere is an upscale shopping area which is predominantly run by African Americans under the authority of Mayor Yolanda Broadie. This case has some interesting twists. When this case goes to trial, the Village and its officers will have to overcome the fact that the EEOC has already concluded that the Village discriminated against the officers on the basis of race. Interestingly, however, the federal Court's Minutes of Proceedings from 8/23/07 indicate that Ellis already lost a state administrative appeal and that Mengay's administrative appeal is still pending. In fact, in the Ellis' case, the 8th District Court of Appeals docket (Trial Court No. CV-04-550569 and Appeal No. CA-05-086881) indicates that Ellis lost his administrative appeal in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, unsuccessfully appealed to the Court of Appeals, and then unsuccessfully filed a petition for certiorari in the Ohio Supreme Court, which dismissed for lack of a substantial constitutional question. Mengay's appeal (Case No. CV-04-546985) is close to decision in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas court because both sides have filed proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.

The second case (Case No. 1:07-cv-02517-JG, filed 8/20/097 on PACER) involves multiple claims of retaliation, constructive discharge, and equal protection brought by former black Police Chief LaMont Lockhart, who claims the Village retaliated against him when he provided information about Ellis and Mengay's allegations to the EEOC. Lockhart has asked that the Court to consolidate his action with the Government's case on behalf of Ellis and Mengay.