Coco v. Beyesly's Restaurant
2021 Ohio 4201
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Coco was hired in March 2017 as a dishwasher/kitchen employee at Beyesly’s, a small family-run restaurant.
- Coco has multiple sclerosis and experienced a flare on November 29, 2017 causing a temporary paralysis; he informed the employer he would be out and later said he could return in late December but was told he had been replaced.
- Coco filed a disability-discrimination complaint in June 2020; the restaurant moved for summary judgment and the trial court granted it on April 29, 2021.
- Employer attendance records (affidavit and matrix) showed Coco was scheduled for 203 days (Mar–Dec 2017), worked 163, was late 22 times, and reported off 54 times (≈26.6% of scheduled days); employer affidavits said he also frequently claimed he could not perform duties when present.
- The restaurant, a small business, relied on employees to perform in-person tasks (dishwashing); owners often had to fill in when Coco was absent.
- Coco pointed to a recorded January 2018 meeting where owners expressed concerns about liability; the trial court and appellate court found the record showed operational concerns about reliability rather than unlawful discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Coco established a prima facie claim of disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02(A) | Coco had MS, was disabled, and was replaced after his flare—showing adverse action motivated by disability | Even if Coco had a disability, employer acted for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (excessive absences and inability to perform essential functions) | Court: Coco failed to make a prima facie showing because he was not a "qualified" individual able to perform essential functions due to attendance problems |
| Whether regular attendance is an essential job function making Coco unqualified under the ADA/Ohio law | Coco can perform job duties and sought to return | Regular attendance and in-person performance (washing dishes) are essential; Coco missed ~26% of scheduled days and often could not perform tasks when present | Court: Attendance is an essential function; Coco was not qualified and employer’s action was justified |
| Whether recorded statements by owners constitute direct evidence of discrimination or pretext | The recorded meeting showed owners worried about Coco falling and suggested discriminatory motive | Owners’ statements reflected legitimate safety and reliability/business-operation concerns, not unlawful bias | Court: Statements reflect operational concerns and unpredictability, not proof of discriminatory pretext; summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (1996) (Civ.R. 56 standard for summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (moving party’s burden in summary judgment and role of evidentiary showing)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (party seeking summary judgment must identify record evidence negating essential elements)
- Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone, 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (1998) (elements of prima facie disability-discrimination claim under Ohio law)
- Gantt v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co., 143 F.3d 1042 (6th Cir. 1998) (attendance requirements can render employee not a "qualified" individual under the ADA)
- Tyndall v. National Educ. Ctrs., 31 F.3d 209 (4th Cir. 1994) (same—attendance as a qualification)
- Larkins v. Ciba Vision Corp., 858 F. Supp. 1572 (N.D. Ga. 1994) (regular attendance and ability to perform work are essential functions)
- Hood v. Diamond Prods., Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (1996) (employer’s burden to state legitimate nondiscriminatory reason; employee must show pretext)