Hughes v. Youngstown State Univ.
2021 Ohio 2079
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Plaintiff Jimmy Hughes, an African American and long-time intermittent YSU officer (and former Youngstown police chief), applied for YSU chief of police on March 23, 2017.
- YSU posted the vacancy Feb. 15, 2017; a four-person search committee met March 3 and March 10, reviewed ~22 applications, and selected candidates for first- and then second-round interviews.
- The search committee had an internal cut-off of March 10 and did not evaluate applications submitted after that date; eight applications (including Hughes’s) were submitted after March 10 and were not considered.
- YSU kept the posting live until the hire but notified Hughes his application would not be considered; YSU ultimately hired interim chief Shawn Varso (a white male).
- Hughes filed an OCRC charge (no probable cause) and sued under R.C. Chapter 4112, §1983, and Title VII. The Court of Claims granted YSU summary judgment; on appeal the Tenth District affirmed, holding Hughes failed to establish a prima facie adverse employment action because his late application was never considered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether YSU’s non-consideration of Hughes’s application is an "adverse employment action" for a prima facie discrimination claim | Hughes contends the selection process was a sham and non-consideration effectively refused to hire him | YSU says it had an internal March 10 cutoff, completed initial review and interviews, and did not consider late applications | Court: Not an adverse employment action here because Hughes applied after the committee’s internal deadline and his application was never considered; therefore prima facie element fails |
| Whether YSU’s stated reason was pretext for discrimination | Hughes argues the procedure, all-white committee, and lack of Black second-round candidates show pretext | YSU points to consistent non-consideration of all late applicants and legitimate nondiscriminatory hiring steps | Court: Even if considered, Hughes failed to produce evidence showing YSU’s reason was pretext; summary judgment appropriate (appellate affirmance rests on failure to prove prima facie) |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- United States Postal Serv. Bd. of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 (1983) (discusses methods of proof and burdens in employment discrimination suits)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (1981) (Ohio’s adoption of McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (movant’s initial burden on summary judgment and requirements to point to Civ.R. 56 evidence)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (summary judgment response standards for nonmoving party)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (1997) (Civ.R. 56 standard and appellate review)
- Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 101 Ohio App.3d 38 (1995) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Koos v. Central Ohio Cellular, Inc., 94 Ohio App.3d 579 (1994) (de novo review of summary judgment)
- Samadder v. DMF of Ohio, Inc., 154 Ohio App.3d 770 (2003) (adverse employment action assessed case-by-case)