Hunter v. Bur. of Workers' Comp.
2016 Ohio 8577
| Ohio Ct. Cl. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Doug Hunter, a non-minority employee of the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC), was terminated after alleged policy violations including dishonesty and reviewing coworkers’ work without authorization; he previously had disciplinary history including multiple suspensions and a written reprimand.
- Plaintiff sued asserting reverse race discrimination (R.C. 412.02(A) and R.C. 4112.99) and intentional spoliation of evidence; BWC moved for summary judgment and the court had earlier dismissed a wrongful-discharge claim.
- BWC produced employment and investigatory records and contended Hunter’s termination was pursuant to its disciplinary grid and for dishonesty; BWC denied intentional destruction of relevant records and asserted document destruction followed retention policy.
- Hunter pointed to treatment of several African-American employees (Erik Edwards, Donieta Edwards, Craig Thompson, Daryl Smith) and missing Featherling office records, handwritten investigatory notes, and alleged emails as evidence of disparate treatment and spoliation.
- BWC provided testimony that no similarly situated employee had two active suspensions at the time of disciplinary action and that none of the compared employees were charged with dishonesty; BWC also disclosed over 1,000 Featherling-related documents and explained date discrepancies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reverse race discrimination — prima facie and comparables | Hunter claims BWC treated minority employees less harshly for similar conduct and that BWC is an unusual employer that discriminates against non-minorities | BWC says Hunter had multiple prior disciplines (two active suspensions), was charged with dishonesty, and comparators lacked similar disciplinary history or dishonesty allegations | Granted for BWC — Hunter failed to show similarly situated comparators or that BWC’s reasons were pretextual |
| Pretext for termination | Hunter argues BWC’s proffered reasons were a pretext for discrimination | BWC points to documentary evidence and testimony supporting legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons (disciplinary grid; dishonesty) | Held BWC’s reasons had basis in fact and no evidence they did not motivate termination; court will not second-guess business judgment |
| Spoliation — existence and willful destruction | Hunter contends Featherling records, investigatory notes, and emails were destroyed to impede his case | BWC produced many Featherling records, explained additions by later supervisors, and said handwritten notes were destroyed per retention policy before preservation request | Granted for BWC — Hunter offered only speculation and no evidence of intentional destruction or resulting prejudice |
| Effect of missing materials on merits | Hunter asserts missing documents would show disparate treatment and affect outcome | BWC argues even if documents existed, Hunter cannot show they would change that he had two active suspensions and a dishonesty charge at termination | Held BWC — even presumed recovery of records would not create genuine issue of material fact sufficient to avoid summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (standard for movant’s initial burden on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting principles)
- Fuentes v. Perskie, 32 F.3d 759 (pretext requires more than showing employer was mistaken)
- Smith v. Howard Johnson Co., 67 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio recognizes intentional, not negligent, spoliation claim)
- Manofsky v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 69 Ohio App.3d 663 (courts should not second-guess employer personnel decisions)
- White v. Equity, Inc., 191 Ohio App.3d 141 (elements of spoliation claim discussed)