Fry v. FCA US L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 7005
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Fry (legally blind) applied to work at Chrysler in spring 2014, completed screening and was offered a job in May 2014; physical on May 28, 2014 limited him from driving/company vehicles.
- Chrysler notified Fry his start date in February 2015; Fry began work and was terminated on February 20, 2015, after a HR representative said Chrysler could not accommodate his vision impairment.
- Fry sued on November 17, 2015 asserting disability discrimination, wrongful termination, failure to accommodate, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- Chrysler moved to dismiss/for summary judgment, relying on an employment-application provision where Fry agreed to a 180-day limitations period for any suit arising from his application or employment; Fry had executed the application electronically.
- Fry opposed enforcement arguing lack of consideration, no meeting of the minds (procedural unconscionability) because of his blindness and inability to read/negotiate the terms, and submitted a self-declared statement under 28 U.S.C. § 1746.
- The trial court converted the motion to summary judgment, ruled Fry’s unsworn declaration inadmissible for Civ.R. 56 purposes, found the application formed a contract supported by consideration and not unconscionable, and granted summary judgment for Chrysler; the Sixth District affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the application formed an enforceable contract (offer, acceptance, consideration) | Fry: no valid contract — Chrysler’s promise to review was insufficient/illusory and he lacked assent | Chrysler: application was an offer; Fry accepted by signing; consideration existed in Chrysler’s promise to review | Court: Contract formed; offer + acceptance shown; consideration (review vs. waiver of rights) adequate |
| Whether there was a meeting of the minds / mutual assent (procedural unconscionability) | Fry: legally blind, lacked opportunity to read, understand, negotiate; no meaningful choice | Chrysler: Fry signed and is presumed to have read/understood; could seek other employers; terms reasonable | Court: No meeting-of-minds or unconscionability evidence; signing and circumstances show assent; not procedurally or substantively unconscionable |
| Admissibility of Fry’s declaration in opposition to summary judgment | Fry: submitted declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 to support facts (blindness, inability to obtain large-print copy, lack of explanation) | Chrysler: declaration is unsworn and cannot substitute for an affidavit under Ohio Civ.R. 56(C) | Court: Declaration inadmissible as Civ.R. 56 evidence; Fry’s unsupported assertions insufficient to create genuine issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2002) (elements of contract: offer, acceptance, consideration)
- State ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 69 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1994) (summary judgment elements)
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (Ohio 2008) (de novo review for unconscionability)
- Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Power Engineering Group, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 429 (Ohio 2007) (signatory presumed bound by signed contract)