2016 Ohio 1124
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Reginald Glenn, an employee of Hose Master, was terminated after a supervisor's superior discovered a racially and sexually offensive video Glenn posted that was recorded on the Hose Master shop floor.
- Glenn previously sustained a finger injury, filed a workers’ compensation claim, and later had a separate back injury for which he sought treatment shortly before termination.
- Hose Master’s executive vice president (who alone decided to terminate Glenn) stated he was unaware of Glenn’s prior finger workers’ compensation claim when he terminated Glenn based on the video.
- Glenn sued for workers’ compensation retaliation (R.C. 4123.90), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, disability discrimination, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; the court of appeals affirmed, holding Glenn failed to produce evidence creating a genuine issue that the termination was retaliatory or motivated by a protected disability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Workers’ compensation retaliation (R.C. 4123.90) | Glenn argued termination was retaliation for his earlier finger workers’ compensation claim and that the video rationale was pretext. | Hose Master argued the termination was for a legitimate, nonretaliatory reason — the offensive video — and decisionmaker lacked knowledge of the prior claim. | Summary judgment for Hose Master: Glenn failed to show causal connection or that decisionmaker knew of the claim. |
| Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy | Glenn argued discharge was to avoid liability for a potential back workers’ compensation claim. | Hose Master argued no evidence the decisionmaker knew of any workers’ compensation claim or that discharge was retaliatory. | Summary judgment for Hose Master: Glenn failed to prove causation or that the decisionmaker knew of the alleged protected activity. |
| Disability discrimination (ADA/common-law analog) | Glenn claimed a herniated disc/back injury made him disabled or perceived-as-disabled and that he was treated differently. | Hose Master argued decisionmaker did not know of any disability or injury and thus could not have acted because of it. | Summary judgment for Hose Master: no evidence decisionmaker knew of a disability; plaintiff cannot meet prima facie case. |
| Supervisor liability (individual defendant Gancos) | Glenn suggested supervisor’s knowledge and past practice support inference he participated in termination decision. | Hose Master showed supervisor had no input and the vice president alone terminated Glenn. | Summary judgment for supervisor: no evidence he participated in or caused retaliatory discharge. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Riverside Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 8, 479 N.E.2d 275 (establishes prima facie elements for workers’ compensation retaliation)
- Kilbarger v. Anchor Hocking Glass Co., 120 Ohio App.3d 332, 697 N.E.2d 1080 (employer must articulate legitimate nonretaliatory reason)
- Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 153, 950 N.E.2d 938 (clarifies public-policy wrongful discharge claims tied to R.C. 4123.90 and causation requirement)
- Kent v. Chester Labs, Inc., 144 Ohio App.3d 587, 761 N.E.2d 60 (circumstantial evidence may create triable issue when employer warned employee not to file claim)
- Hedberg v. Indiana Bell Tel. Co., Inc., 47 F.3d 928 (an employer cannot discriminate "because of" a disability it did not know about)