2023 Ohio 4398
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Robert Friedman (pro se) sued Ebner Properties and Mark Ebner after alleging employees told him they would not rent to him because he has Tourette Syndrome; he identified two alleged statements (one by an office worker, one by Ebner to a rabbi).
- Friedman asserted claims under the Fair Housing Act (FHA), Ohio R.C. 4112.02(H), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); he later referenced the ADA on appeal.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment and submitted affidavits from Ebner and an employee denying the alleged statements and asserting Ebner Properties does not deny rentals based on disability; they also alleged Friedman’s poor rental history as a legitimate, non‑discriminatory reason for rejection.
- Friedman opposed summary judgment but did not submit any Civ.R. 56(C) evidence (depositions, affidavits, admissions, etc.) to support his alleged statements or to rebut defendants’ proffered reason.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals affirmed, finding defendants met their initial burden and Friedman failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants made discriminatory statements in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(c) and R.C. 4112.02(H)(7) | Friedman: two statements (office worker and Ebner) directly indicated refusal to rent because of Tourette Syndrome | Ebner & employee affidavits deny such statements and deny disability‑based refusals | Court: Defendants met burden; Friedman produced no Civ.R.56(C) evidence of the statements; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether defendants intentionally denied rental in violation of 42 U.S.C. §3604(f)(1) and R.C. 4112.02(H)(15) (direct‑evidence claim) | Friedman: the alleged statements are direct, unambiguous proof of discriminatory intent | Defendants: no direct evidence; affidavits denying the statements and asserting legitimate reasons | Court: No admissible direct evidence in the record; summary judgment upheld |
| Whether circumstantial McDonnell Douglas framework supports discrimination claim (prima facie and pretext) | Friedman: could establish prima facie and show discrimination via circumstantial evidence | Defendants: articulated legitimate non‑discriminatory reason (Friedman’s rental history, damages, evictions); plaintiff offered no evidence of pretext | Court: Defendants offered a legitimate reason; Friedman produced no Civ.R.56(C) evidence to show pretext; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether IIED claim survives based on alleged housing discrimination | Friedman: defendants’ discriminatory conduct was extreme and outrageous causing severe distress | Defendants: no actionable discrimination; conduct denied | Court: IIED fails because underlying discrimination claims failed; summary judgment for defendants |
| Whether Title I of the ADA applies | Friedman: invoked ADA Title I on appeal | Defendants: ADA claim was not raised below and Title I governs employment, not housing | Court: ADA argument waived and, in any event, Title I inapplicable to housing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hudson v. Petrosurance, Inc., 127 Ohio St.3d 54 (2010) (standard for granting summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s initial burden and nonmovant’s reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden‑shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination claims)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (1983) (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- HDC, L.L.C. v. Ann Arbor, 675 F.3d 608 (6th Cir.) (standards for proving intentional housing discrimination)
- Corey v. Secretary, U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev., 719 F.3d 322 (4th Cir.) (elements of a discriminatory‑statement claim under FHA)