2013 Ohio 5262
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Drogell, diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1997, worked for Ohio Farmers Insurance for ~34 years and retired early in 2008 after disability leave.
- In 2005 he sought short- and long-term disability and SSDI; in 2005 he also pursued early 401(k) distribution.
- He filed a second discrimination complaint against Westfield Group; Westfield moved for summary judgment and Drogell sought time to respond (extension granted).
- A September 27, 2011 filing included Drogell’s opposition brief and a rough, unsigned deposition draft of Keith Vanover; the court deemed the deposition untimely and refused to consider it.
- The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment to Westfield, then sua sponte entered summary judgment in Westfield’s favor on all claims; Drogell appealed with new counsel and raised a supplemental assignment of error.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s summary judgment and rejected Drogell’s supplemental assignment, with a separate dissent addressing the potential to consider Vanover’s deposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by disallowing Vanover deposition | Drogell argued the order was ambiguous and extension may have included deposition filing | Westfield contended Civ.R. 32 barred filing, so deposition was properly excluded | Harmless error; deposition not properly certified and thus not required to be considered |
| Disability discrimination: whether Drogell was qualified for his position with or without accommodation | Drogell asserted genuine factual disputes about his ability to perform job functions | Westfield showed Drogell acknowledged lack of qualification with/without accommodation | Summary judgment affirmed; no material dispute that Drogell was not qualified for the position with/without accommodation |
| Age discrimination: whether Drogell was qualified or suffered adverse action due to age | Drogell claimed indirect evidence of discriminatory intent; relied on affidavit | Westfield asserted absence of direct evidence and same qualification issue as disability claim | Summary judgment affirmed; no material fact showing age-based discrimination under McDonnell Douglas framework |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress: whether Westfield’s conduct was extreme and outrageous | Constructive discharge after 34 years could be extreme and outrageous | Accommodations and lack of specific outrageous acts; no evidence of extreme conduct | Summary judgment affirmed; no genuine dispute on outrageous conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden-shifting for summary judgment requires nonmoving party to show a genuine issue)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (establishes summary-judgment standard and burdens)
- McGlone v. Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm., 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (1998) (discrimination burden-shifting framework reference (indirect evidence))
- Coryell v. Bank One Tr. Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (2004) (McDonnell Douglas paradigm in age-discrimination claims)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (2006) (affidavits contradicting deposition generally cannot create material fact dispute)
- Spencer v. East Liverpool Planning Comm., 80 Ohio St.3d 297 (1997) (evidence outside Civ.R.56 requirements can be considered; certification not mandatory for all)
- Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 (2005-Ohio-6268) (discrimination proof framework (direct/indirect))
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (1993) (outrageous conduct standard for IIED (abrogated in part))