2019 Ohio 5322
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Brehm (age 60 at hire; 61 at termination) was hired in Feb 2016 as Administrator of MacIntosh’s New Albany skilled nursing facility.
- During his tenure facility net income fell 37.2% year-over-year and office-supply budgets were repeatedly exceeded.
- Management adopted a new monthly financial-meeting agenda; Brehm’s submissions were less detailed than other administrators’.
- After being unable to produce requested meeting documentation, MacIntosh (through COO Dunn and CFO Anderson) terminated Brehm on March 10, 2017; he was replaced by a 34-year-old.
- Brehm sued for age discrimination under R.C. Chapter 4112; the trial court granted summary judgment to MacIntosh and the Tenth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brehm established a prima facie age-discrimination claim | Brehm is in the protected class, was discharged, replaced by a substantially younger person, and therefore met prima facie elements | MacIntosh argued Brehm was not "qualified" (subjective performance-based claim) so prima facie fails | Court: Brehm met prima facie — qualification is an objective inquiry (education, experience, skills) and he was objectively qualified |
| Whether MacIntosh articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for termination | Brehm contends stated reasons are pretext | MacIntosh: terminated for poor job performance (declining net income, inadequate documentation, weak leadership) | Court: MacIntosh adequately produced legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons |
| Whether Brehm showed those reasons were pretextual | Brehm claimed (1) inconsistent reasons given at termination, (2) no prior warnings or progressive discipline, (3) pattern of replacing older admins and disparate treatment of younger admins | MacIntosh: performance issues were factual; no requirement to use progressive discipline; comparators not similarly situated or were also in protected class | Court: Evidence insufficient to show pretext under any Manzer method; plaintiff’s affidavit was conclusory/self‑serving and did not create a genuine issue of material fact |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate | Brehm argued disputed facts required trial | MacIntosh argued record establishes no genuine issue of material fact | Court: de novo review affirmed summary judgment for MacIntosh |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (employer meets production burden by articulating a nondiscriminatory reason)
- Burdine (Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine), 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (prima facie presumption and employer production burden)
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (2004) (Ohio adopts Title VII frameworks for R.C. Chapter 4112 claims)
- Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 (1983) (McDonnell Douglas adoption in Ohio)
- Wexler v. White's Fine Furniture, Inc., 317 F.3d 564 (6th Cir. 2003) (objective qualification inquiry at prima facie stage)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir. 1994) (three methods to prove pretext)
- Ercegovich v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 154 F.3d 344 (6th Cir. 1998) (similarly-situated comparator standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary judgment burdens in Ohio)
- Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 (2005) (discussion of burdens and pretext in Ohio discrimination law)