102 N.E.3d 1157
Oh. Ct. App. 7th Dist. Carroll2017Background
- Colfor Manufacturing, Inc. appeals a trial court judgment affirming an Ohio Civil Rights Commission final order finding Colfor discriminated based on disability by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to Jason Ott.
- Ott, with multiple sclerosis and heat sensitivity, had been accommodated at Salem (no hot jobs, 40 hours) and later bid for FPO positions after Salem’s closure; Malvern required new accommodation considerations.
- In 2010 Ott returned to work under restrictions and bid on ten FPOs at Malvern; he was not awarded due to perceived inability to work hot jobs, despite prior Salem accommodations.
- Ott provided medical documentation and requested accommodation; Colfor and its HR director Moran delayed or refused to engage in interactive process and seek clarification from Ott’s doctors.
- Ott filed a discrimination charge in March 2011; an ALJ recommended a finding of discrimination; the Commission adopted the ALJ’s findings; the trial court affirmed; Colfor appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Colfor discriminate by failing to accommodate Ott? | Ott was disabled and Colfor knew; accommodation possible at Malvern exists. | Ott's restrictions were unclear and Malvern layout differed; accommodation not proven feasible. | No; substantial evidence supports failure-to-accommodate finding |
| Was Ott otherwise qualified for the Malvern FPO position with restrictions? | Ott demonstrated ability to perform FPO with restrictions; Salem experience shows qualification. | Ott’s restrictions created ambiguity about suitability for Malvern FPO. | Yes; evidence supports Ott as an otherwise qualified individual |
| Did Colfor engage in the interactive process regarding Ott's accommodation? | Colfor failed to initiate or adequately pursue the interactive process. | Colfor attempted information requests; Ott did not provide sufficient medical detail. | Yes; failure to engage interactive process established |
| Did Ott mitigate damages for back pay by seeking other positions? | Back pay proper; Ott attempted to bid on other roles when available. | Ott could have bid on additional roles; failure to mitigate reduces award. | No; substantial evidence supports back-pay award without reductions for mitigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Case W. Res. Univ., 76 Ohio St.3d 168 (1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing OCRC orders)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion meaning of arbitrary or unconscionable action)
- Shaver v. Wolske & Blue, 138 Ohio App.3d 653 (10th Dist.2000) (employee must show disability, employer awareness, and qualification with/without accommodation)
- Barber v. Chestnut Land Co., 2016-Ohio-2926 (7th Dist. Ohio) (employer interactive-process duties and reasonable accommodation standard)
- Cavins v. S & B Health Care, Inc., 39 N.E.3d 1287 (2d Dist. Ohio) (mitigation of damages burden on employer in discrimination cases)
- State ex rel. Martin v. City of Columbus, Dept. of Health, 58 Ohio St.2d 261 (1979) (mitigation concept in wrongful employment exclusion cases)
- Matasy v. Youngstown Ohio Hosp. Co., LLC, 7th Dist., 2017-Ohio-7159 (2017) (employee burden to propose reasonable accommodation; employer bears undue-hardship defense)
- Moran v. Malvern Plant (as cited within opinion), Commission Ex. references (2010-2011) (interactive process duties and documentation in accommodation decisions)