2023 Ohio 3628
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Roy Carroll, a student with disabilities, enrolled at Cuyahoga Community College (Tri-C) and received disability accommodations documented in an Access letter.
- In July 2019 Carroll took a five-week condensed course whose professor initially refused to honor the Access letter; accommodations were provided for the final exam but Carroll received a C grade.
- Carroll complained to Tri-C staff, filed an OCRC charge on October 2, 2019, and Tri-C entered a conciliation agreement with OCRC in May 2020.
- Carroll sued Tri-C and several employees in May 2021 alleging disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).
- Tri-C moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), asserting political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744; the trial court denied the motion and Tri-C appealed the immunity ruling.
- The appellate court addressed (1) whether R.C. 2744 immunity applied or was waived by statute and (2) whether intentional tort claims survive immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tri-C is entitled to blanket immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 | Carroll argued an exception applies because R.C. Chapter 4112 expressly imposes civil liability and defines "person" to include political subdivisions | Tri-C argued Carroll failed to plead a statutory waiver and is entitled to immunity | Held: Tri-C is a political subdivision but Carroll pleaded facts sufficient to invoke R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) via R.C. 4112 — denial of dismissal as to discrimination, harassment, and intimidation affirmed |
| Pleading burden on immunity at the complaint stage | Carroll: notice pleading suffices; plaintiff need not negate affirmative defenses at pleading | Tri-C: plaintiff must plead facts showing an exception to immunity | Held: Court reaffirmed notice-pleading rule — plaintiff need not disprove immunity at pleading stage |
| Whether R.C. 2744.03 discretionary-function defenses bar the claims | Carroll: factual issues (discretion, bad faith, malice) preclude dismissal | Tri-C: employees acted within discretionary/policy-making authority, so defenses apply | Held: Application of R.C. 2744.03(3) and (5) raises factual issues beyond the complaint; dismissal premature |
| Whether intentional tort claims (retaliation, IIED) survive immunity | Carroll: these claims are actionable against the college/employees | Tri-C: intentional torts are barred by political-subdivision immunity | Held: Intentional torts are not covered by the R.C. 2744 exceptions; dismissal of retaliation and IIED claims against Tri-C and employees in official capacities is required |
Key Cases Cited
- Gates v. Leonbruno, 70 N.E.3d 1110 (Ohio 2016) (denial of political-subdivision immunity is a final, appealable order)
- Colbert v. Cleveland, 790 N.E.2d 781 (Ohio 2003) (political subdivisions generally immune under R.C. 2744)
- Duncan v. Cuyahoga Cmty. Coll., 970 N.E.2d 1092 (Ohio App. 2012) (three-tier R.C. 2744 analysis explained)
- Hutsell v. Sayre, 5 F.3d 996 (6th Cir. 1993) (higher education is a governmental function)
- Doe v. Adkins, 178 N.E.3d 947 (Ohio 2021) (interpretation of R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) and what constitutes an "express" statutory imposition of liability)
- Cramer v. Auglaize Acres, 865 N.E.2d 9 (Ohio 2007) (statutory definitions that include political subdivisions can create an express waiver)
- Moore v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 905 N.E.2d 606 (Ohio 2009) (general statutory terms do not necessarily waive immunity for political subdivisions)
- O'Toole v. Denihan, 889 N.E.2d 505 (Ohio 2008) (statute imposing liability on "person" does not automatically include political subdivisions absent express definition)