Eschborn v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2017 Ohio 824

Plaintiff Anne Eschborn, a seasonal ODOT Highway Tech I hired January 12, 2015 to operate plow/salt trucks, was terminated February 10, 2015 after less than a month on the job.
Eschborn was the only female employee at the Cortland post at the time of hire and claims ODOT gave multiple, inconsistent reasons for her termination (poor performance, lack of work, and alleged sexual-harassment/foul language), which she contends are pretext for sex discrimination under R.C. 4112.02.
ODOT moved for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56, arguing plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie sex-discrimination claim or produce evidence of replacement or disparate treatment.
Eschborn offered no direct evidence of discrimination and produced only her testimony that an employee nicknamed “Tiny” may have been assigned to her post after she left; she admitted she did not know if she was actually replaced.
The court found Eschborn failed to prove the fourth McDonnell Douglas prima facie element (replacement by non-protected person or that a similarly situated non-protected employee was treated better), and she produced only a scintilla of evidence on comparators and replacement.
The court granted ODOT’s motion for summary judgment, dismissed the case, and assessed court costs against Eschborn.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Eschborn established a prima facie sex-discrimination claim under McDonnell Douglas	Eschborn: termination was motivated by sex; ODOT’s stated reasons are pretextual/inconsistent	ODOT: plaintiff cannot show replacement by non-protected person or better treatment of a similarly situated male	Held: No — Eschborn failed to establish the prima facie case
Whether plaintiff was replaced by someone outside the protected class	Eschborn: testimony that “Tiny” was moved into her post suggests replacement	ODOT: no admissible evidence showing actual replacement; redistribution of duties would not constitute replacement	Held: No evidence of replacement; plaintiff’s testimony insufficient
Whether a similarly situated non-protected employee was treated better	Eschborn: workplace foul language was common and ODOT applied a double standard	ODOT: plaintiff cannot identify any male treated differently or who used similar language and went unpunished	Held: Plaintiff failed to identify a similarly situated comparator treated more favorably
Whether proffered nondiscriminatory reasons were pretext	Eschborn: ODOT offered inconsistent reasons, suggesting pretext	ODOT: provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons; plaintiff offered only speculative or scintilla-level evidence of pretext	Held: Court did not reach pretext in depth because prima facie case not established; summary judgment for ODOT granted

Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party must show absence of genuine issue of material fact; nonmoving must then produce specific opposing facts)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standards; movant need not negate opponent’s claim with affidavits)
Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (Ohio 1996) (direct vs. indirect methods to establish prima facie discrimination)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for prima facie discrimination proof and burden-shifting)
Barnes v. GenCorp, Inc., 896 F.2d 1457 (6th Cir. 1990) (evidence types for discriminatory motivation; replacement and redistribution principles)
Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (U.S. 1977) (disparate treatment described as less favorable treatment because of protected trait)
Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U.S. 604 (U.S. 1993) (protected trait must have determinative influence on employment decision)
Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) (example of direct evidence where employer expressly cites discriminatory reason)
Kittle v. Cynocom Corp., 232 F. Supp. 2d 867 (S.D. Ohio 2002) (discussion of burden-shifting and pretext in discrimination cases)