Copen v. CRW, Inc.
2018 Ohio 2347
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Copen worked for CRW as a truck driver; he suffered a 2010 workplace injury, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and accepted light-duty work that did not require weekend work.
- CRW later offered a different light-duty position requiring weekend work; Copen refused and his employment ended after a meeting with CRW's HR director (disputed whether he quit or was fired).
- Copen sued asserting (1) retaliation under R.C. 4123.90 for pursuing workers’ compensation and (2) disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02 (perceived disability).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for CRW; this court previously remanded because the trial court’s original entry lacked explanation.
- After remand CRW filed a renewed summary-judgment motion; Copen’s counsel did not file an opposition (allegedly after being told the court would not consider further briefing). The trial court again granted summary judgment and later denied Copen’s Civ.R. 60(B) motion.
- On appeal this Court affirmed summary judgment for CRW on the merits, vacated the trial court’s post-appeal Civ.R. 60(B) ruling for lack of jurisdiction, and taxed costs to appellant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by considering CRW’s renewed post-remand summary-judgment motion | Copen: remand was limited to explanation of reasoning; court shouldn’t accept new briefing and he relied on court representation, so consideration prejudiced him | CRW: filing a renewed motion was permissible; court may consider post-remand motion | Court: Assignment of error disregarded for failure to cite authority/record; dissent would have remanded but majority did not disturb judgment on this ground |
| Whether Civ.R. 60(B) motion was properly denied after appeal was filed | Copen: trial court should have considered and granted relief from judgment | CRW: trial court denied motion on merits | Court: Trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Civ.R. 60(B) after appeal; denial vacated |
| Whether refusal to accept new weekend schedule and resulting job end constituted retaliation under R.C. 4123.90 | Copen: schedule change and termination were adverse actions tied to his workers’ comp claim | CRW: Copen voluntarily quit or was terminated for insubordination; schedule change was not retaliation and employer could discipline for refusal | Court: No adverse action tied to pursuit of workers’ comp; summary judgment for CRW affirmed on retaliation claim |
| Whether CRW perceived Copen as disabled for purposes of R.C. 4112.02 (perceived-disability claim) | Copen: HR reviewed MEDCO-14 and MRI and thus perceived him as disabled | CRW: knowledge of injury alone does not establish perception of disability; no evidence of discriminatory perception | Court: Evidence only showed awareness of injury, not that CRW regarded him as disabled; summary judgment for CRW affirmed on discrimination claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s and nonmovant’s summary-judgment burdens)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (Civil Rule 56(C) standard)
- Howard v. Catholic Social Servs., 70 Ohio St.3d 141 (Ohio 1994) (appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction over Civ.R. 60(B) motions)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 1984) (law-of-the-case/mandate rule)