2023 Ohio 3083
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Appellant Ja-Nelle Gilliland met PNC branch VP Mark Adams in 2018–2019 seeking business-banking services for a salon; she alleged Adams promised loans/credit/merchant services but made sexual advances and conditioned assistance on sexual compliance.
- Gilliland produced text messages (including a selfie exchange) and deposition testimony saying she wanted a loan and felt pressured/harassed; she also testifies a $1,566 deposit never posted and that Adams charged/collected fees for services.
- Adams contends Gilliland solicited him, that he was not interested in sex, that he still opened a business account for her, and that his subsequent termination followed an investigation into his language but was recorded as retirement.
- Gilliland sued under R.C. 4112.02(G) (public-accommodation sex discrimination / quid pro quo) and for intentional infliction of emotional distress; the trial court granted summary judgment for Adams on both claims.
- On appeal the Second District reversed summary judgment as to the R.C. 4112.02(G) claim, holding Gilliland’s sworn statements that she sought a loan created a genuine issue of material fact whether she was denied the “full enjoyment” of banking services because she rebuffed sexual advances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Gilliland's sex-discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.02(G) (quid pro quo) | Gilliland says she sought a loan/credit and was denied full enjoyment of PNC services after rejecting Adams's sexual advances | Adams says Gilliland did not show she was denied bank benefits beyond feeling embarrassed; no documentary proof of a denied loan or refusal of service | Reversed: genuine dispute of material fact exists; summary judgment improper because Gilliland's testimony/texts that she sought a loan raise an issue for trial |
| Whether Gilliland presented sufficient evidence that she asked for banking benefits (loan/credit) as a condition of alleged sexual advances | Testimony and text messages indicate she wanted a loan/credit and filled out paperwork | Adams disputes that she applied for or was denied a loan and characterizes her statements as inconsistent or solicitous | Held for appellant: the appellate court found her statements sufficient to survive summary judgment and create a triable issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Civil Rights Comm. v. Lysyj, 313 N.E.2d 3 (Ohio 1974) (establishes R.C. 4112.02(G) inquiry: denial of "full enjoyment" of place of public accommodation is unlawful)
- Meyers v. Hot Bagels Factory, Inc., 721 N.E.2d 1068 (Ohio Ct. App.) (defines "full enjoyment" to include access to services/products in same manner as other customers)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., Inc., 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1978) (moving party’s burden to show no genuine issue of material fact for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 662 N.E.2d 264 (Ohio 1996) (nonmoving party’s burden to produce specific facts showing a genuine issue for trial)
- Rhododendron Holdings, LLC v. Harris, 166 N.E.3d 725 (Ohio Ct. App.) (reiterating Civ.R. 56 summary-judgment standard)