Ames v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 23 N.E.3d 162

Background

Ames was a long‑term Senior Parole Officer whose duties included supervising staff; she had prior approved mental‑health leave after witnessing her partner's suicide in 2006.
From 2009–2010 Ames was the subject of multiple workplace incident reports for conflicts, erratic/emotional conduct, and an alleged joking threat on Facebook (“I guess I could just shoot them all…lol!”).
ODRC ordered three independent medical examinations (IMEs) between 2009–2010 to assess safety, violence risk, fitness to supervise, and firearm carriage; all three examiners cleared her to return to work, noting personality/paranoid features but not an inability to perform her duties.
While on medical leave in Oct. 2010, Ames posted a threatening Yahoo! Messenger message directed at a coworker (Brady); after an investigation in which Ames denied sending it, Deputy Director Sara Andrews terminated Ames in Jan. 2011 for threatening an employee and failing/cooperating/lying in an investigation.
Ames sued in the Ohio Court of Claims claiming unlawful employment discrimination under R.C. 4112 based on a perceived disability; the trial court granted ODRC summary judgment, and Ames appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ordering multiple IMEs shows ODRC "perceived" Ames as disabled	Multiple IMEs indicate ODRC regarded Ames as mentally impaired and thus disabled	Ordering IMEs in response to safety/behavioral concerns is not equivalent to regarding an employee as disabled	Court: IMEs ordered to assess workplace danger do not alone show ODRC perceived a disability; no prima facie showing of perceived disability
Whether the IME reports themselves establish perception of disability	IME findings of personality/paranoid features show ODRC perceived impairment	IME reports repeatedly cleared Ames to perform her job; reports do not show ODRC believed she was substantially limited	Court: IMEs do not demonstrate ODRC regarded Ames as disabled; examiners cleared her to resume duties
Whether ODRC’s stated reason for termination was pretext for discrimination	Termination based on IMEs/possible perceived disability; Andrews’s inconsistent testimony and IME request rationale suggest pretext	Termination was for a specific threatening message and for lack of cooperation in the investigation—legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; record contains documentation supporting those reasons	Court: Reason for termination (threatening coworker and interfering with investigation) was legitimate; plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of pretext
Whether a coworker (Blackburn) was a valid comparator showing discriminatory treatment	Blackburn made joking references to shooting without discipline, showing disparate treatment	Blackburn’s comments were isolated and not part of a pattern; Ames’s conduct involved repeat incidents, escalating conflict, and a direct threatening message — not comparable	Court: Blackburn was not similarly situated in all relevant respects; conduct not of comparable seriousness; comparator claim fails

Key Cases Cited

Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) (comparators standard discussion)
Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (comparator and discrimination analysis)
Bobo v. United Parcel Service, Inc., 665 F.3d 741 (6th Cir. 2012) (standard for identifying similarly situated comparators)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (U.S. 1981) (employer’s burden to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason and plaintiff’s burden to prove pretext)
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. 1993) (pretext requires showing employer’s reason was false and discrimination was the real reason)
Mauzy v. Kelly Services, Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (Ohio 1996) (plaintiff must prove discriminatory intent)