Juergens v. House of LaRose, Inc.
2019 Ohio 94
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Plaintiff Ralph Juergens, a Teamsters Local 293 member, was terminated by House of LaRose, Inc. on March 6, 2017; he filed a handwritten grievance that same day and the Union declined to arbitrate on March 18, 2017.
- The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) provided a multi‑step grievance process and required the Union to request arbitration within ten days after denial at step three.
- Juergens sued LaRose and HR VP Al Scott on September 21, 2017, alleging age discrimination under R.C. 4112.02; he did not plead R.C. 4112.14 in his complaint.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the R.C. 4112.02 claim was time‑barred (180‑day limit) and alternatively barred because Juergens had the opportunity to arbitrate under the CBA.
- The trial court stayed discovery, granted summary judgment for defendants, denied Juergens’ Civ.R. 56(F) request for additional discovery, and denied a motion to amend to assert R.C. 4112.14; Juergens appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of R.C. 4112.02 claim | Juergens: limitations tolled until grievance/arbitration process completed (claimed termination "official" March 25) | LaRose: termination occurred March 6; 180‑day period expired before suit | Claim was time‑barred; statute began March 6, 2017; complaint filed after 180 days |
| Effect of internal grievance on tolling | Juergens: grievance process tolled limitations | LaRose: grievance does not equitably toll the statutory period | Tolling not allowed; internal grievance does not extend the 180‑day period |
| Ability to proceed under R.C. 4112.14 (six‑year limit) | Juergens: complaint sufficiently pleaded alternative R.C. 4112.14 claim or should be allowed to amend | LaRose: plaintiff elected R.C. 4112.02 and is barred from R.C. 4112.14; amendment improper | Plaintiff elected R.C. 4112.02; barred from asserting R.C. 4112.14; denial to amend not an abuse of discretion |
| Civ.R. 56(F) request for additional discovery | Juergens: needed discovery to dispute termination date and tolling (e.g., Scott out‑of‑state) | LaRose: issues were legal; record adequate for summary judgment | Trial court did not abuse discretion; issues were legal and plaintiff’s affidavit was conclusory/self‑serving |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden‑shifting framework on summary judgment)
- Oker v. Ameritech Corp., 89 Ohio St.3d 223 (Ohio 2000) (statute of limitations for age discrimination begins on date of termination)
- Garrish v. Intl. Union, 417 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2005) (hybrid LMRA §301 exhaustion requirement distinguishable from state age‑discrimination claims)
- Meyer v. UPS, 122 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 2009) (judicial restraint — avoid unnecessary rulings)
- Leinenger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 115 Ohio St.3d 311 (Ohio 2007) (plaintiff must elect which age‑discrimination statute to pursue)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain‑error standard in civil cases)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)