Little York Tavern v. Lane
2017 Ohio 850
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Melanie Lane worked as a server at Little York Tavern beginning in 2010 and filed a sexual‑harassment complaint in March 2011 after an alleged inappropriate encounter with her supervisor, Mark Rothwell. She also reported the incident to police; criminal charges were later dismissed.
- Lane alleged subsequent poor treatment at work after she complained; while her initial OCRC harassment investigation found no probable cause, she filed a second OCRC complaint alleging retaliatory termination.
- On October 8, 2011 Lane was fired after Rothwell accused her of deleting items from a customer’s bill to steal; Lane denied the theft and signed a statement to avoid arrest.
- The OCRC’s ALJ found Little York Tavern had retaliated against Lane for filing the harassment complaint, ordered reinstatement and back pay ($62,688.43), and the OCRC adopted the ALJ’s amended recommendation applying the Supreme Court’s but‑for causation standard.
- The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the OCRC order; Little York Tavern appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of proof for retaliation (but‑for vs. motivating factor) | Little York Tavern: ALJ/trial court failed to apply Nassar but‑for (determinative factor) standard; conclusions unsupported. | OCRC/ALJ: initially applied broader Ohio standard but amended to apply Nassar; findings unchanged and supported by credibility determinations. | Court: No error — ALJ adopted but‑for standard on remand and findings (including that alleged theft was pretext) were supported by substantial evidence. |
| Admissibility/use of OCRC Letter of Determination (Exhibit A) | Little York Tavern: Exhibit A impeaches Lane’s testimony about post‑complaint harassment and undermines her retaliation claim. | OCRC: Letter is hearsay, contains no sworn statement by Lane, and is irrelevant to retaliation; ALJ properly excluded it. | Court: Exclusion was reasonable; exhibit did not bear on retaliation and lacked foundation/authentication. |
| Back pay and mitigation of damages | Little York Tavern: ALJ improperly limited evidence about job availability and Lane’s mitigation; should have permitted testimony and/or judicial notice that comparable jobs were available. | Lane/OCRC: Lane made reasonable mitigation efforts; employer bears burden to prove failure to mitigate; offered testimony would be speculative and lacked personal knowledge. | Court: ALJ and trial court reasonably limited speculative testimony; record supports finding Lane used reasonable diligence; back pay award affirmed. |
| Specific factual findings challenged by employer | Little York Tavern: Several discrete factual findings lack support and are erroneous. | OCRC: Findings are supported by witness credibility and record evidence. | Court: Declined to reweigh credibility; upheld the ALJ’s factual findings as supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden‑shifting framework for discrimination/retaliation claims)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (prima facie burden and proof allocation explanations)
- Ford Motor Co. v. E.E.O.C., 458 U.S. 219 (employee’s duty to mitigate damages for back pay awards)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (scope of appellate review of administrative decisions)
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Case W. Res. Univ., 76 Ohio St.3d 168 (definition of reliable, probative, substantial evidence standard)
- T. Marzetti Co. v. Doyle, 37 Ohio App.3d 25 (courts may not set aside administrative findings supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence)
- Little Forest Med. Ctr. of Akron v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 61 Ohio St.3d 607 (principles on back pay and mitigation under Ohio law)