Borad v. April Ents., Inc.
2012 Ohio 5096
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Borad, a registered nurse, sued April Enterprises for age discrimination in the Second Appellate District, Montgomery County.
- Borad had worked at Walnut Creek Nursing Center since August 1994.
- On November 3, 2009, Borad administered a double dose of diabetes medication to a patient, triggering suspension and termination on November 12, 2009.
- Supervision by Miller and input from Dr. Visiliu led to a Class II then Class I disciplinary finding and Borad's firing.
- April later hired another nurse who committed the same error; Borad alleged this showed discriminatory intent but emphasized lack of replacement/comparator evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for April in February 2012; the appellate court reviews de novo and affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie age-discrimination case | Borad argues she showed a prima facie case under Barker/Byrnes frameworks. | April contends no replacement by younger worker or proper comparator evidence. | Summary judgment affirmed; no prima facie case. |
| Replacement by a substantially younger individual | Borad claims replacements were younger nurses after termination. | April asserts no admissible proof of younger replacement. | Not shown; affirmed. |
| Disparity with a similarly situated non-protected employee | Borad points to Mickus's similar error but different discipline. | Mickus is not sufficiently similarly situated to Borad. | Not similarly situated; affirmed. |
| Direct evidence of discrimination | Borad relies on indirect Barker framework rather than direct evidence. | No direct discriminatory evidence presented. | Court relied on Barker framework; no genuine issue identified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 (Ohio 1983) (four-part Barker framework for indirect discrimination)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (prima facie case shifting framework in discrimination cases)
- Byrnes v. LCI Communications Holdings Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 1996) (two methods to prove discriminatory intent)
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio 2004) (broadened fourth prong to include substantially younger replacements)
- Mitchell v. Toledo Hospital, 964 F.2d 577 (6th Cir. 1992) (similarly situated requirement for disparate treatment analysis)