Copen v. CRW, Inc.
83 N.E.3d 264
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Copen worked for CRW as a truck driver, was injured at work in 2010, and accepted a light‑duty washing position that did not require weekend work. The BWC allowed his claim for a lumbosacral sprain and right foot contusion.
- CRW later offered a revised light‑duty assignment that required weekend work and asked Copen to start the next day; Copen did not report that day and later refused the schedule change after meeting with HR director Brown.
- The parties dispute whether Copen resigned or was discharged; CRW says he voluntarily quit for insubordination, Copen says CRW changed his schedule to force him out in retaliation for his workers’ compensation claim and because it perceived him as disabled.
- Copen sued for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 and disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02. After depositions, Copen sought leave to amend to add a civil‑conspiracy claim based on alleged surreptitious surveillance by CRW officials; the trial court denied leave.
- CRW moved for summary judgment on multiple grounds (no adverse employment action, legitimate non‑retaliatory reasons, no disability or perceived disability, and no pretext). The trial court granted summary judgment for CRW without explanation. Copen appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on retaliatory discharge and perceived‑disability discrimination was improper | Copen: CRW materially changed schedule and terminated him to retaliate for pursuing workers’ comp and to avoid unemployment exposure; CRW knew of his injuries and perceived him as disabled | CRW: Copen quit; schedule change was legitimate business need; even if adverse action, nondiscriminatory reasons exist; Copen is not disabled/perceived as disabled | Trial court granted summary judgment for CRW but appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to explain which grounds it relied on, preventing proper de novo review |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to amend complaint to add civil‑conspiracy claim | Copen: Depositions revealed facts (surveillance and actors) justifying amendment; motion was timely and unopposed; no trial date set so no prejudice | CRW: Copen knew of the video long before and had a copy produced in other litigation; motion was delayed and possibly in bad faith; amendment prejudicial | Denial of leave to amend was not an abuse of discretion given Copen’s prior knowledge and delay; appellate court affirmed denial |
| Whether trial court erred in not striking CRW president’s affidavit | Copen: Affidavit (dating surveillance to after employment) contradicted deposition and should be stricken | CRW: Affidavit was proper evidence; Copen failed to move to strike below | Appellate court declined to consider the claim as forfeited for failure to raise it below; affirmed on this point |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summary judgment reviewed de novo)
- Hoover v. Sumlin, 12 Ohio St.3d 1 (leave to amend: Civ.R. 15(A) liberality; deny only for bad faith/undue delay/prejudice)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion standard)
- Brown v. FirstEnergy Corp., 159 Ohio App.3d 696 (appellate review of denial of leave to amend)