Hauser v. Dayton Police Dept. (Slip Opinion)
140 Ohio St. 3d 268
Ohio2014Background
- Anita Hauser, a female police officer over 40, sued the Dayton Police Department (DPD) and her supervisor Major E. Mitchell Davis for age- and sex-based employment discrimination under R.C. Chapter 4112 and Title VII.
- Hauser alleged discriminatory employment actions (wage withholding, frivolous investigations, denial of advancement) taken by DPD and Davis.
- DPD and Davis moved for summary judgment; Davis asserted political-subdivision employee immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6), relying on Campolieti. The trial court denied immunity for Davis as to sex-discrimination claims. Hauser voluntarily dismissed her case, and Davis appealed the denial of immunity.
- The Second District court of appeals affirmed, concluding R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) and 4112.02(A) "expressly impose" civil liability on managers/supervisors, removing immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c), and certified conflict with the Eighth District.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted jurisdiction to resolve whether the employer-discrimination provisions of R.C. Chapter 4112 expressly impose civil liability on political-subdivision employees (thus defeating immunity).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hauser) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4112.01(A)(2) together with R.C. 4112.02(A) "expressly imposes" civil liability on political-subdivision employees so as to negate immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) | The statutory definition of "employer" (including persons acting in interest of an employer) makes supervisors individually liable; thus immunity is removed | The employer provisions create only vicarious (respondeat superior) liability for the employer, not express individual liability for employees; immunity therefore remains | The Court held these provisions impose vicarious liability on the employer, not express individual liability on political-subdivision employees, so immunity exception in R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) is not triggered |
| Whether Genaro v. Cent. Transport controls the immunity question | Genaro supports holding supervisors individually liable under R.C. Chapter 4112, so it should require denying Davis immunity | Genaro did not decide the precise immunity question for political-subdivision employees and is not binding on this specific immunity issue | The Court concluded Genaro does not squarely address the R.C. 2744 immunity exception here and is not controlling on this question |
Key Cases Cited
- Packard Motor Car Co. v. NLRB, 330 U.S. 485 (holding the phrase “acting in the interest of an employer” was meant to render employers vicariously liable for acts of persons performed in their interests)
- Genaro v. Cent. Transport, Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 293 (Ohio 1999) (held supervisors/managers may be jointly and severally liable with employer under R.C. Chapter 4112)
- Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis, 100 Ohio St.3d 216 (Ohio 2003) (procedural precedent-overruling framework discussed)
- Meritor Sav. Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (Title VII’s employer definition incorporates agency/respondeat superior principles)
- Busby v. Orlando, 931 F.2d 764 (11th Cir. 1991) (Title VII does not create individual employee liability)
- Wathen v. Gen. Elec. Co., 115 F.3d 400 (6th Cir. 1997) (Congress did not intend individual liability under Title VII employer definition)
- Fantini v. Salem State College, 557 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2009) (no individual employee liability under Title VII)