Inskeep v. W. Res. Transit Auth.
2013 Ohio 897
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Inskeep appeals a grant of judgment on the pleadings in favor of WRTA.
- Court held sexual-orientation discrimination is not actionable under R.C. 4112.02(A) as written.
- Affidavit attached to response to motion for judgment on the pleadings was not properly before the court.
- NIED is not recognized as a separate tort in the employment context in Ohio.
- Court declined to consider the affidavit and upheld dismissal of NIED and sex-discrimination claims.
- Civ.R. 12(C) governs judgments on the pleadings and requires evaluating only pleadings and attached documents.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is sexual orientation discrimination actionable under RC 4112.02(A)? | Inskeep contends sex includes sexual orientation. | WRTA argues sex means gender, not orientation. | Not actionable under the statute; orientation is not protected. |
| Was the affidavit properly disregarded in ruling on the motion? | Affidavit supported by distress claim should be considered. | Affidavits attached to motions are not part of pleadings. | Affidavit properly disregarded; not considered for Civ.R. 12(C) ruling. |
| Is negligent infliction of emotional distress a distinct employment tort? | NIED should be recognized when distress results from harassment. | Ohio generally does not recognize NIED as a separate employment tort. | NIED not recognized as a separate employment tort; claim rejected. |
| What is the proper standard for a Civ.R. 12(C) motion? | The pleadings plus attached materials should be considered. | Only pleadings and documents attached to pleadings may be considered. | Governing standard confirms review on pleadings and attached pleadings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2000) (same-sex harassment actionable under sex-based discrimination when proven)
- Retterer v. Whirlpool Corp., 89 Ohio St.3d 1215 (Ohio 2000) (discusses scope of sex-based discrimination; concurring reasoning on orientation issue)
- Tarver v. Calex Corp., 125 Ohio App.3d 468 (7th Dist. 1998) (same-sex harassment and discrimination analysis in appellate court)
- Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 454 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2006) (federal authority on sexual orientation discrimination in workplace)
- Spearman v. Ford Motor Co., 231 F.3d 1080 (6th Cir. 2000) (discrimination based on sexual orientation not protected by Title VII)
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Serv., Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (Supreme Court 1998) (established that harassment based on sex includes same-sex harassment)
- Wright v. Schwebel Baking Co., 2005-Ohio-4475 (Ohio 7th Dist. 2005) (Ohio law generally does not recognize NIED as a separate employment tort)