Campolieti v. Cleveland Dept. of Pub. Safety
2013 Ohio 5123
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- John Campolieti, a 67-year-old Cleveland firefighter with ~40 years' service, sought a lateral transfer (May 2006) to a lieutenant vacancy in the Fire Investigation Unit (FIU); he had highest seniority and comparable qualifications.
- The City selected Lieutenant Christopher Posante (then 42) instead; Chief Stubbs testified he denied Campolieti because he believed Campolieti could not satisfy a 5-year training-use requirement due to mandatory retirement at 65 (Cleveland City Codified Ordinances §135.07) and comments from a councilman about hiring younger workers.
- Campolieti sued under R.C. 4112.14 and 4112.99 for age discrimination; earlier summary judgment for the City was reversed on appeal, case was refiled and tried to the bench in 2012.
- The trial court found unlawful age discrimination, awarded back pay and $100,000 in emotional-distress damages, plus attorney fees; the City appealed raising multiple assignments of error.
- The appellate court affirmed liability (age discrimination and pretext) but reversed the damages award, holding remedies are governed by R.C. 4112.14(B) rather than the broader R.C. 4112.99, and remanded for recalculation of permissible relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service of process (Civ.R. 4.2(N)) | Service on Chief Assistant Director of Law (Theodora Monegan) was sufficient to notify City legal office | Service was defective because it was not served on the Law Director (Triozzi) or the officer in charge of the Dept. of Public Safety | Service was reasonably calculated to notify City; appeal rejected this challenge |
| Capacity to be sued (whether Dept. of Public Safety is suable) | City was effectively represented by City Law Department; capacity challenge waived | Dept. of Public Safety is not a legal entity and judgment is void | Defense waived by failure to plead capacity in answer; capacity argument rejected |
| Exhaustion of CBA remedies | Not required to exhaust CBA grievance/arbitration for statutory age claim | Must exhaust CBA remedies first | Court follows prior precedent: statutory age claims need not exhaust CBA remedies; exhaustion not required |
| Statutory scope — is a lateral transfer a "job opening" under R.C. 4112.14(A)? | Transfer to FIU lieutenant is a job opening covered by statute | Lateral transfer is not a job opening under 4112.14(A) | Vacancy constituted a job opening; plaintiff may bring claim under 4112.14(A) |
| Liability — legitimate nondiscriminatory reason / pretext | Chief Stubbs’ stated reliance on CBA 5-year-use rule and retirement provision was pretext; he admitted age influenced decision | Decision was a reasonable business judgment based on CBA and retirement ordinance and external pressure | Trial court's finding of age discrimination affirmed; City’s proffered reason lacked factual basis and was pretextual |
| Remedies — whether plaintiff could recover under R.C. 4112.99 (broad damages) | Broad remedies under R.C. 4112.99 and Leininger permit compensatory/emotional-distress damages | Remedies limited to R.C. 4112.14(B) (reinstatement, back pay, costs, attorney fees) and 4112.99 is a gap-filler | Appellate court: Leininger cannot be read to allow R.C. 4112.99 to expand remedies beyond specific directives; plaintiff limited to remedies under R.C. 4112.14(B); trial court’s award vacated and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth. v. Swinehart, 62 Ohio St.2d 403 (Ohio 1980) (service must be reasonably calculated to notify party)
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (Ohio 1996) (standard for direct proof of discriminatory intent)
- Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 60 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 1991) (R.C. 4112.99 provides independent civil action for discrimination remedies)
- Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 115 Ohio St.3d 311 (Ohio 2007) (discussion of remedies under R.C. Chapter 4112 and scope of 4112.99)
- Meyer v. United Parcel Serv. Co., 122 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 2009) (clarifies Leininger: remedies for age claims must conform to specific provisions of R.C. Chapter 4112)