Baradji v. Zulily
2018 Ohio 304
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Baradji worked at Zulily's Ohio fulfillment center, injured his thumb on August 18, 2014, and filed a workers' compensation claim on August 27, 2014; he was off work through October 20, 2014 for allowed conditions.
- After returning, Baradji accrued attendance problems and exhausted his allotted time-off; Zulily's attendance policy required calling an attendance hotline and provided for rapid progressive discipline ending in termination.
- On February 17, 2015, HR warned Baradji he would receive a final written warning; he left early that day. He missed and failed to call in on February 19, received a final written warning on February 20, was tardy on February 23 and 24, and was terminated on February 24, 2015 for attendance-policy violations.
- Baradji sued under R.C. 4123.90 alleging retaliatory discharge for filing a workers’ compensation claim. Zulily moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Zulily; the appellate court affirmed, finding Zulily offered a neutral, non-retaliatory reason (attendance-policy violations) and Baradji failed to show that reason was pretextual.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination violated R.C. 4123.90 (retaliatory discharge) | Baradji: termination was retaliation for filing workers’ compensation claim; Zulily later paid him hours which shows inconsistency and pretext | Zulily: terminated for neutral, documented attendance-policy violations; post-termination pay was payment of disputed unpaid wages, not "time-off" credits | Held: No genuine issue of material fact that termination was retaliatory; summary judgment for Zulily affirmed |
| Whether Zulily's stated reason was pretextual | Baradji: Zulily misstated attendance (called him absent when he worked) and credited hours after firing, showing hostility and false grounds | Zulily: records and HR testimony show missed calls were due to failure to clock in; post-termination payment was a discretionary pay for alleged unpaid hours, not charged time-off; no evidence these facts motivated termination | Held: Baradji failed to prove pretext (no basis in fact, improper motive, or insufficiency shown) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (summary-judgment standard and de novo appellate review)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant's and nonmovant's burdens on summary judgment)
- Chandler v. Empire Chem., Inc., 99 Ohio App.3d 396 (1994) (elements of workers' compensation retaliatory-discharge claim)
- Jackson v. RKO Bottlers of Toledo, Inc., 743 F.2d 370 (6th Cir. 1984) (causation framework applied to retaliation claims)
- Metheney v. Sajar Plastics, Inc., 69 Ohio App.3d 428 (1990) (neutral application of company policy defeats retaliatory-discharge claim)