2019 Ohio 4245
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Annmarie Lehmier was hired in March 2015 as the only female account manager at Western Reserve Chemical; she reported to Tony Hall and worked under company president Ronald Anderson.
- Lehmier complained of disparate treatment during employment (office placement, training, travel policy, customer assignments) and alleged Anderson made sexist comments to her in February 2016 ("grow a pair" and "wear shorter skirts").
- After giving a 2015 performance presentation that Anderson praised, Hall and Anderson decided to terminate Lehmier; she was fired soon after she reported Anderson’s remarks.
- Lehmier sued asserting gender discrimination, retaliation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and hostile work environment; the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims.
- On first appeal the Ninth District affirmed summary judgment on the discrimination claim (holding the complaint pled termination but not other adverse acts), but reversed summary judgment on the retaliation claim because the trial court decided the claim on a pretext theory the employer had not argued.
- On remand Lehmier moved to amend her complaint to add a terms-and-conditions discrimination claim (denied by the trial court under law-of-the-case), and the trial court later granted a second summary judgment for defendants on the retaliation claim; the Ninth District reversed both rulings and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to deny leave to amend the complaint | Lehmier argued amendment would cure defects identified on appeal (clarify a distinct terms-and-conditions discrimination claim supported by original facts) | Western Reserve argued this Court already held the complaint contained no allegations of discrete adverse acts aside from termination, so amendment was barred | Court held applying law-of-the-case was erroneous because the motion to amend presented a different issue (curing pleading defects) and amendment would not conflict with the prior appellate ruling; remanded for reconsideration |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on Lehmier’s retaliation claim (causal connection and pretext) | Lehmier pointed to temporal proximity, her presentation praise (customer service rep affidavit that Anderson said he was proud and did not plan to fire her), and that termination followed her complaint about Anderson’s comments | Western Reserve relied on lack of causal connection and earlier appellate ruling that Lehmier failed to show pretext in her discrimination claim | Court held a genuine issue of material fact existed as to causation (and that the earlier pretext ruling in the discrimination context did not preclude a retaliation pretext showing); summary judgment reversed and case remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (amendment of pleadings—courts should freely give leave unless amendment is futile)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings)
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984) (describing the law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Current Source, Inc. v. Elyria City School Dist., 157 Ohio App.3d 765 (2004) (leave to amend may be denied when amendment is futile)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (1977) (civil summary-judgment standard)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden and reciprocal burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Greer-Burger v. Temesi, 116 Ohio St.3d 324 (2007) (elements of a retaliation prima facie case)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (employer’s obligation to articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)