Collins v. Mason, 2020 Ohio 1186

Background

Collins (hired 1999; Dir. of Public Utilities 2006) held an OEPA Class IV license required to operate the City's water/wastewater plants. In 2014 City officials questioned when he would retire and asked him to train a younger employee, Kathleen Dorman.
Collins secretly assisted a private firm, Environmental Water Services (EWS), formed by his girlfriend; he signed an NDA and performed some consulting while still employed by the City.
In 2015 the City received complaints about Collins' outside work and conduct. Two internal investigations found undisclosed EWS involvement, a subcontractor relationship implicating a City subordinate, and Collins’ refusal to answer questions citing the NDA.
Collins was placed on administrative leave, had a predisciplinary hearing (represented by counsel), and was terminated June 30, 2015 for outside employment, failure to disclose, and refusal to cooperate with investigations.
The City quickly hired Michael Hunter (67) as Collins’ Director (later replaced by a younger hire after Hunter’s resignation). Collins sued for age discrimination and retaliation; the federal suit was dismissed (federal claims with prejudice); the state trial court granted summary judgment for the City; Collins appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Collins replaced by a substantially younger person (prima facie age-discrimination element)?	Collins: intended replacement was the substantially younger Dorman (or later Hollon); replacement should be assessed at termination.	City: Dorman lacked required Class IV license and was not hired; the City hired 67‑year‑old Hunter who performed Collins’ duties.	Court: No — Collins failed to show replacement by a substantially younger person; prima facie case not established.
Was the City's stated reason (outside employment/failure to disclose/refusal to cooperate) pretext for age discrimination?	Collins: Policy was unevenly enforced; his EWS work was minimal and unpaid, so termination was pretextual.	City: Legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons supported by investigation and undisputed facts.	Court: Moot as to the prima facie element; alternatively, City articulated legitimate reasons and Collins did not show pretext.
Did Fair’s repeated retirement inquiries and recommendation create a retaliatory "cat's paw" that caused termination?	Collins: Fair was biased for asking when Collins would retire; Hansen relied on Fair’s recommendation, so Fair’s bias taints the termination.	City: No evidence Hansen knew of any complaint about Fair or that Fair’s age animus was the but‑for cause; investigations were conducted independently and the memo reflected factual findings.	Court: No — Collins failed to show a causal connection or that biased subordinate caused the termination; cat’s‑paw theory not met; retaliation claim fails.

Key Cases Cited

Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio prima facie age-discrimination elements and burden-shifting)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden-shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 153 (distinguished — refusal to apply Sutton's gap-filling rationale to R.C. 4112 claims)
Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 (retaliation prima facie elements under Ohio law)
Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411 (discussion of the cat's‑paw theory in employment law)
Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457 (definition/analysis of "replacement" in discrimination context)
Simmons v. Sykes Ents., Inc., 647 F.3d 943 (analysis of when subordinate's input is causally connected under cat's-paw theory)