2019 Ohio 1975
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Kate Kane was IMS’s regional vice president of operations; she took two FMLA leaves for pregnancy and returned to work Feb. 13, 2017, when she was informed her position was eliminated following Island’s October 2016 purchase of IMS.
- Kane sued IMS, Island, and Justin Meiser asserting FMLA interference and retaliation, gender discrimination, public-policy discrimination, promissory estoppel, and sought declaratory relief on a non‑compete; she demanded a jury.
- Defendants moved to strike the jury demand based on a jury-waiver in Kane’s employment agreement; the trial court granted that motion and later granted summary judgment to IMS and Island (and separately to Meiser, which is not appealed).
- Kane relied on two unsigned “Separation Agreement and Release” documents (Exhibits 6 & 7) to argue the stated RIF justification for her termination was pretextual; the trial court excluded those exhibits under Evid.R. 408 and granted summary judgment.
- The Ninth District held the trial court abused its discretion in excluding Exhibits 6 & 7 because Kane offered them to impeach defendants’ stated reason (not to prove liability via settlement), and remanded for reconsideration of summary judgment with those exhibits considered.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s striking of the jury demand, finding the waiver broad, conspicuous, and knowingly entered under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Exhibits 6 & 7 (separation agreements) at summary judgment | Exhibits undermine defendant’s RIF explanation and impeach credibility; should be considered | Exhibits inadmissible under Evid.R. 408 as settlement-related | Court: Exclusion was abuse of discretion; exhibits are admissible to impeach and were prejudicially omitted; reversed on this point |
| FMLA interference (failure to restore) | Kane: She was not restored to her original position; termination was pretextual | Defendants: Position eliminated in a bona fide RIF; Kane not entitled to reinstatement | Court: Summary judgment vacated as to interference to permit trial court to reconsider with exhibits; remanded |
| FMLA retaliation | Kane: Terminated on first day back — temporal proximity supports causation; termination pretextual | Defendants: No causal connection; termination due to RIF; even if prima facie, termination legitimate and non‑pretextual | Court: Summary judgment vacated to the extent the trial court failed to consider the excluded exhibits; remanded for reconsideration |
| Jury-trial waiver in employment agreement | Kane: Waiver does not expressly cover discrimination claims and was not knowingly/voluntarily given | Defendants: Waiver broadly covers litigation arising out of the agreement and was conspicuous and knowingly accepted | Court: Waiver valid and enforceable; striking jury demand affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Diar v. Roe, 120 Ohio St.3d 460 (Ohio 2008) (standard for reviewing evidentiary rulings; abuse of discretion and material prejudice)
- Ohio Consumers’ Counsel v. Pub. Util. Comm., 111 Ohio St.3d 300 (Ohio 2006) (Evid.R. 408 does not bar settlement evidence when used for purposes other than proving liability)
- Cassidy v. Glossip, 12 Ohio St.2d 17 (Ohio 1967) (parties may waive jury trial rights so long as waiver is knowing and voluntary)