2019 Ohio 3655
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Sylvia Johnson-Newberry, an African-American former social worker, sued Cuyahoga County Division of Children and Family Services (CCDCFS) and her supervisor Stacey Gura alleging disability discrimination, race discrimination, retaliation, and an aiding-and-abetting claim against Gura under R.C. 4112.02(J).
- Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings and to strike punitive damages; plaintiff moved to amend only to correct a misnomer in the county defendant’s name.
- Trial court denied the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and granted leave to amend to correct the defendant’s name.
- Gura appealed, arguing (1) she is immune as a political-subdivision employee under R.C. 2744.03 and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the amendment.
- The appellate court treated the immunity question under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) — whether R.C. 4112.02(J) "expressly imposes" civil liability on an individual employee — and reviewed the denial of the Civ.R. 12(C) motion de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gura is entitled to immunity from a R.C. 4112.02(J) aiding-and-abetting claim (Civ.R. 12(C)) | Johnson-Newberry: R.C. 4112.02(J) applies to "any person," so it expressly imposes individual liability on employees, triggering the R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) exception to immunity. | Gura: As a political-subdivision employee she is immune under R.C. 2744.03; R.C. 4112.02(A) does not expressly impose liability on employees and Hauser precludes individual liability in this context. | Denied immunity. Court found Hauser’s discussion persuasive that 4112.02(J) expressly imposes liability on "any person," so the 2744.03(A)(6)(c) exception applies and dismissal on immunity grounds was improper at this stage. |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by granting leave to amend the complaint (to correct the county defendant’s name) | Johnson-Newberry: Amendment corrects a misnomer only; procedural compliance. | Gura: Plaintiff failed to attach the proposed amendment per local rule and pled punitive damages improperly. | Dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction. The amendment corrected a misnomer only and did not implicate immunity, so the order was not a final, appealable order under R.C. 2744.02(C). |
Key Cases Cited
- Genaro v. Cent. Transp., Inc., 84 Ohio St.3d 293, 703 N.E.2d 782 (1999) (supervisors/managers may be held individually or jointly liable under R.C. Chapter 4112).
- Hauser v. Dayton Police Dep't, 140 Ohio St.3d 268, 17 N.E.3d 554 (2014) (political-subdivision employees immune from employer-discrimination provisions; court noted that R.C. 4112.02(J) expressly imposes liability on "any person").
- Supportive Solutions, L.L.C. v. Electronic Classroom of Tomorrow, 137 Ohio St.3d 23, 997 N.E.2d 490 (2013) (order denying leave to amend generally is not a final appealable order).