Lebron v. A&A Safety, Inc., 2012 Ohio 1637

Lebron worked for A&A Safety, Inc. in Cleveland from 2004 as a striper/tailgunner and was injured on December 12, 2006, returning to work with restrictions and later full duties in 2007.
Lebron worked through the 2008 season; he was not recalled for the 2009 season amid a 44% decrease in available work at the Cleveland branch.
Chase, the Cleveland branch manager, testified the recall decision depended on available work and skills, not solely on tenure, and laid out that others with greater or different skills could perform the limited tasks.
Lebron filed a workers’ compensation claim after the 2006 injury and later pursued additional claims; Lebron alleges the failure to recall him in 2009 was retaliation for such claims.
A&A moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted, and Lebron appealed contending errors about evidence and the sufficiency of his retaliation claim.
The court excluded certain internet-sourced documents for lack of proper authentication and did not take judicial notice of unverified public-record websites, affecting the evidentiary record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the trial court correct to exclude the website documents?	Lebron asserts public-record websites were admissible without authentication.	A&A argues Civ.R. 56(C) requires proper authentication; website printouts cannot be admitted without an affidavit.	Yes, the court properly excluded them.
Did Lebron establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge?	Lebron contends the recall decision followed his workers’ compensation claims.	A&A asserts the recall was driven by a downturn in work and skill fit, not retaliation.	No prima facie case established; burden not met.
Was there evidence of a legitimate nonretaliatory reason for Lebron’s non-recall?	Lebron argues the reason was pretextual due to retaliation for claims.	Chase testified the primary reason was a drastic reduction in available work and skill-fit considerations.	Yes, legitimate nonretaliatory reason supported.
Did Lebron prove pretext or that the real reason was retaliation?	Lebron claims Chase knew of his additional claims and that the reason was pretextual.	There is no evidence Chase knew of the later claims when deciding not to recall Lebron; decision based on market and skills.	No evidence of pretext; no retaliatory motive shown.

Wilson v. Riverside Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 8 (Ohio 1985) (retaliation and workers’ comp considerations in discharge cases; liberal construction of statute)
Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (summary judgment standard and de novo review on appeal)
Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (evidence burdens and shift between prima facie case and pretext analysis)