2011 Ohio 1000
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Bahar, former Clerk of the Youngstown City Council, sued the City of Youngstown alleging retaliation for reporting alleged sexual harassment by Councilman Gillam in 2001.
- Bahar was terminated on February 15, 2006 after a February 8, 2006 staff meeting and subsequent law-department meeting concerning her work performance.
- The City moved for summary judgment on Bahar's retaliation claim; the trial court granted summary judgment in the City's favor on count two.
- Bahar argues a prima facie case was shown by close temporal proximity between protected activity and termination and by the Council’s inaction after her allegations.
- The appellate court reviews de novo the grant of summary judgment, applying Civ.R. 56 standards and viewing evidence in Bahar’s favor at the summary-judgment stage.
- The court ultimately affirms the trial court, holding Bahar failed to establish a causal link between any protected activity and her termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bahar's retaliation claim proven? | Bahar contends close temporal proximity and inaction support causality. | City argues no causal link; protected activity occurred years earlier and no knowledge by decisionmakers. | No genuine causal link; judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1977) (summary-judgment standards and de novo review)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996) (summary judgment standards; Civ.R. 56)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1996) (burden shifting on summary judgment)
- Norton v. FirstEnergy Corp., 7th Dist. 05-JE-5, 2006-Ohio-892 (Ohio Seventh Dist., 2006) (prima facie elements for retaliation)
- Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (U.S. Supreme Court, 2001) (temporal proximity may establish causality in some cases)
- Thatcher v. Goodwill Industries of Akron, 117 Ohio App.3d 525 (Ohio App.3d, 1997) (remedial inaction as evidence of retaliation depends on pattern)
- Ningard v. Shin Etsu Silicones, 2009-Ohio-3171 (9th Dist., 2009) (temporal proximity requires additional evidence)
- Hall v. Banc One Management Corp., 2006-Ohio-913 (10th Dist., 2006) (intervening time and evidence of causality in retaliation claims)
- Aycox v. Columbus Bd. of Ed., 2005-Ohio-69 (10th Dist., 2005) (additional evidence required after multi-month intervals)
- Briner v. Nat’l City Bank, No. 64610 (Feb. 17, 1994) (8th Dist., 1994) (retaliation proof standards in banking context)