1:24-cv-01757
N.D. OhioJan 21, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Karyn Fay Ludlam worked as a drywall finisher on the Riverside Park project in Cleveland, Ohio, from 2018–2020.
- Defendant Ron Porvasnik led a paint crew on the same project; Mistick Construction Company was the general contractor.
- Ludlam alleges ongoing sex-based harassment by Porvasnik and his crew during her employment.
- On February 15, 2021, Ludlam filed charges of discrimination with the EEOC and Ohio Civil Rights Commission; a Notice of Right to Sue was issued July 2024.
- On October 9, 2024, Ludlam filed suit, asserting federal and state (O.R.C. § 4112.02(J)) claims against Porvasnik for aiding and abetting discrimination.
- Porvasnik moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing statutory changes barred claims against individuals and required exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether O.R.C. § 4112.02(J) permits claims against individuals post-ELUA amendments | Statute still permits claims against "any person" for aiding/abetting discrimination | ELUA amendments bar individual liability, claims only against employers | Claims under § 4112.02(J) against individuals remain valid |
| Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies is required | Admin exhaustion not required before 2021 amendments; if required, was satisfied | Plaintiff did not exhaust admin remedies as required post-amendment | Admin exhaustion requirement satisfied (if applicable) |
| Whether Court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims | State and federal claims arise from same facts; judicial economy served | Court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over state claim | Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction |
| Whether the complaint states a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) | Complaint alleges sufficient facts for plausible relief | Complaint fails to state a valid claim | Complaint sufficiently states a claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must show plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (complaint needs more than legal conclusions or mere possibility of misconduct)
- Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, Tenn., 695 F.3d 531 (allegations are accepted as true and inferences drawn in non-movant's favor on motion to dismiss)
- City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156 (federal courts have supplemental jurisdiction over related state law claims)