2020 Ohio 5512
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Fayak applied for and began employment with University Hospitals Police in Dec. 2013; her online employment application included a clause requiring any employment-related suit be filed within six months of the employment action, with her typed name as an electronic signature.
- She alleges discriminatory/harassing conduct through Nov. 2014 and Mar–Apr 2015, took medical leave beginning Dec. 11, 2014 (hospitalized) and again beginning Apr. 23, 2015, and does not allege any adverse acts after Apr. 23, 2015.
- UH terminated her employment June 28, 2016 for unauthorized/unsupported leave after she failed to provide further medical documentation; Fayak does not contest the legitimacy of the stated reason for discharge.
- Fayak filed an initial complaint Sept. 19, 2016 (later voluntarily dismissed), then refiled Feb. 2, 2017 adding individual defendants who were not in the first suit.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Fayak’s claims were time-barred by the six‑month contractual limitation; the trial court granted summary judgment on that ground, finding all actionable events occurred before Apr. 23, 2015 so the original suit was untimely; appeal followed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of six‑month contractual limitations for R.C. Chapter 4112 claims | The clause is void/unenforceable; Logan (6th Cir.) supports that contractual shortening of Title VII limitations is not allowed and R.C. 4112 should be treated similarly | The clause is valid and reasonable under Ohio law; courts have enforced six‑month contractual limits for employment claims | Enforceable under Ohio law; six‑month clause is reasonable and applies; Logan is limited to Title VII federal claims and does not control state‑law claims |
| Timeliness / applicability of savings statute (R.C. 2305.19) | Original lawsuit was filed within six months of termination and the refile is saved by the savings statute | The actionable events occurred before Apr. 23, 2015, so the original suit (Sept. 19, 2016) was beyond six months of the last employment action; addition of new defendants in the refile does not revive untimely claims | Court held the original action was untimely because claims arose prior to Apr. 23, 2015; savings statute did not rescue the refiled claims against new individual defendants |
| Whether defendants improperly raised a new argument in reply (procedural fairness) | New timeliness argument in reply was ambush and should be stricken | Trial court allowed Fayak to file a surreply, so no prejudice | Trial court acted within discretion by permitting response; no prejudice, so argument properly considered |
| Existence of genuine issue on causation/pretext for termination | There are factual disputes whether termination was pretextual and when the limitations period began to run | Termination was for failure to provide documentation/unauthorized leave; no alleged adverse acts during leave and no evidence of causal link to prior harassment | No genuine issue of material fact on causation or pretext; plaintiff offered no evidence to rebut stated nondiscriminatory reason; summary judgment affirmed on timeliness grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Kraly v. Vannewkirk, 69 Ohio St.3d 627 (1994) (contract parties may validly shorten an applicable limitations period if the shorter period is reasonable)
- Logan v. MGM Grand Detroit Casino, 939 F.3d 824 (6th Cir. 2019) (contractual clauses shortening Title VII limitation periods are unenforceable)
- Fry v. FCA US L.L.C., 143 N.E.3d 1108 (6th Dist. 2017) (upheld 180‑day contractual limitation in employment application for state‑law discrimination claims)
- Thurman v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 397 F.3d 352 (6th Cir. 2004) (upheld 180‑day contractual limitation as reasonable for employment‑related claims)
- Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (2000) (Ohio law treats R.C. Chapter 4112 claims in light of federal Title VII principles)