Locigno v. 425 W. Bagley, Inc.
2016 Ohio 5924
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiff Natalie Locigno worked as a bartender/server at Zach’s Steakhouse (owned by Paul Sr., Vivian, and Paul Jr. Zacharias) from March 2004 to January 2005 and alleged repeated sexual harassment by Paul Sr. (kissing, sexual comments, touching).
- Locigno testified she reported the conduct to Vivian and Paul Jr.; she recorded a conversation with Paul Sr. in which he admitted knowing the conduct upset her. Several co-workers corroborated witnessing kissing, touching, and sexually explicit material at the restaurant.
- Defendants denied purposeful touching and disputed knowledge; Paul Jr. acknowledged some complaints and said he spoke to his father. Vivian denied receiving complaints or minimized them.
- A jury found for Locigno, awarding lost wages, compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants and attorney fees; the trial court denied defendants’ post-trial JNOV and new-trial motions and awarded attorney fees.
- Defendants appealed, raising (1) counsel misconduct/new trial and JNOV sufficiency as to Vivian and Paul Jr., (2) erroneous burden-of-proof wording for punitive damages in an interrogatory, and (3) alleged prejudicial ex parte communication with the jury during deliberations. The appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel misconduct during cross-exam/closing required a new trial | Locigno relied on limited use of a prior complaint and a played tape recording as proper evidence and argument | Zachariases argued opposing counsel introduced prejudicial evidence/comments and improperly played the tape in closing | No misconduct warranting a new trial; court limited questioning and allowed tape playback previously admitted at trial; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether JNOV should be granted as to Vivian and Paul Jr. for insufficient evidence of employer knowledge/inaction | Locigno argued evidence showed pervasive harassment and that Vivian and Paul Jr. knew or should have known and failed to act | Defendants argued they addressed complaints (said kissing not required) and harassment ceased, so no basis for liability | Sufficient evidence supported hostile-work-environment claim against both; JNOV properly denied |
| Whether jury interrogatory misstated burden for punitive damages (preponderance vs. clear and convincing) | Locigno argued jury was instructed correctly on clear and convincing and would follow instructions | Defendants argued the interrogatory created inconsistent/erroneous standard and rose to plain error | No plain error; proper instruction on clear-and-convincing was given and presumed followed despite interrogatory wording |
| Whether ex parte communication with jury during deliberations required reversal | Locigno did not assert prejudice from any communication | Defendants argued a juror letter was handled without notifying counsel and the bailiff/substitute judge may have communicated with jury | No reversible error; court found no substantive ex parte contact that prejudiced defendants; any non-substantive instruction harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2000) (elements for hostile-environment sexual harassment)
- Ruta v. Breckenridge-Remy Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 66 (Ohio 1982) (standards for JNOV review)
- Pang v. Minch, 53 Ohio St.3d 186 (Ohio 1990) (broad latitude in closing argument)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error doctrine in civil cases)
- Murphy v. Carrollton Mfg. Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 585 (Ohio 1991) (de novo review of jury instructions correctness)
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (ex parte communications and prejudice standard)
- Michelson v. Kravitz, 103 Ohio App.3d 301 (Ohio App. 1995) (harmlessness of non-prejudicial ex parte communication)