Dunn v. GOJO Industries
96 N.E.3d 870
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Dunn, hired in 2008 as a document control coordinator, was observed appearing to sleep at her desk on March 12, 2015; co-workers took a photo and two videos. She denied sleeping and said she had a migraine; she had not previously informed GOJO of migraine issues.
- Dunn was suspended and terminated on March 16, 2015 at age 62; her younger (late-20s) former officemate assumed her duties.
- Dunn sued under R.C. 4112.02 for disability and age discrimination and claimed failure to accommodate; GOJO moved for summary judgment.
- GOJO produced HR affidavits stating sleeping on the job is terminable and that the decision followed an investigation including witness statements and the photo/videos; GOJO also presented evidence it had terminated other employees for sleeping.
- The trial court granted GOJO summary judgment on all claims; the Ninth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination — adverse employment action (termin. for alleged sleeping) | Dunn: she wasn’t sleeping; she suffered a migraine and the termination was pretext for disability discrimination | GOJO: terminated for legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason (appeared to sleep); investigation produced photos/videos and witness statements | Held: GOJO entitled to summary judgment — employer had honest, reasonable belief based on particularized facts; Dunn failed to show pretext |
| Failure to accommodate | Dunn: telling GOJO she had a migraine after the incident should have triggered interactive accommodation process; GOJO preemptively fired her | GOJO: no duty arose because Dunn did not request an accommodation before or at the time of the conduct; she disclosed migraine only after being investigated | Held: Dunn did not request an accommodation or describe limitations; duty to accommodate not triggered; summary judgment affirmed |
| Age discrimination under R.C. 4112.02 | Dunn: replacement by substantially younger worker supports age discrimination and GOJO’s sleeping rationale is discredited | GOJO: conceded prima facie case for summary-judgment purposes but produced legitimate nondiscriminatory reason (sleeping) and no evidence of pretext | Held: Dunn failed to present evidence showing GOJO’s reason was pretextual; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s and nonmoving party’s burdens on summary judgment)
- Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone, 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (elements for prima facie disability discrimination under R.C. 4112.02)
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (prima facie framework and purpose in discrimination cases)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir.) (employer must reasonably rely on particularized facts to show honest belief in proffered reason)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (burden-shifting framework and employer production burden)