Brandner v. Innovex, Inc.
970 N.E.2d 1067
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Brandner started at Innovex in Sept. 2008 as a pharmaceutical sales rep for Durezol with Ohio/Kentucky/Indiana territory.
- Cavaliere, a district manager, had limited direct contact but interacted during field visits and meetings.
- Brandner alleges Cavaliere touched her in a car on several occasions and made commented remarks about her appearance and others.
- HR investigated Cavaliere in Feb. 2009; Cavaliere was disciplined and required training.
- Brandner complained again in spring 2009 and later, but continued employment; she was placed on a Performance Management Plan (PMP) in mid-2009.
- In Sept. 2009, Innovex/transition to Sirion; Brandner terminated by Sirion in Sept. 2009 for submitting an unauthentic physician’s signature; she conceded the signature was not authentic, but claimed briefing inconsistencies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brandner proven hostile-work-environment claim | Brandner: harassing conduct based on sex, frequent enough to affect conditions of employment | Defendants: conduct not sufficiently severe or pervasive; isolated incidents | Summary judgment for defendants on hostile environment claim |
| Whether Brandner proven retaliation claim | Brandner: protected activity and adverse action with causal link | Defendants: legitimate reasons for PMP and termination; no pretext shown | Summary judgment for defendants on retaliation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Supreme Court (1986)) (establishes standard for hostile-work-environment analysis)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (Supreme Court (1993)) (relevance of totality of circumstances to severity of harassment)
- Kilgore v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 387 (2007-Ohio-2952) (totality-of-circumstances framework for severity per E.E.O.C./Harris)
- Bucher v. Sibcy Cline, Inc., 137 Ohio App.3d 230 (1st Dist. 2000) (harassment must interfere with work performance)
- Hoyt v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2005-Ohio-6367 (10th Dist.) (employee must be an employee at time of harassment)
- Nguyen v. Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (causal proof through temporal proximity and other evidence)
- Neal v. Hamilton Cty., 87 Ohio App.3d 670 (1st Dist. 1993) (pretext and causation in retaliation analysis)
- Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (2000) (application of Title VII principles to Ohio Rev. Code 4112)
- Kinnison v. Advance Stores Co., Inc., 2003-Ohio-3387 (5th Dist.) (timing and protected activity in retaliation)