Martin v. Block Communications, Inc.
2017 Ohio 1474
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James Martin, a former technical support employee at Block Communications/Buckeye Cablevision, alleged disciplinary actions, schedule changes, denial of leave, and termination between 2014–2016.
- Martin claimed these adverse actions were discriminatory under Ohio law (R.C. 4112.02) and initially asserted federal claims; he later removed federal claims and R.C. 4112.05 from a proposed amended complaint.
- Block moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing Martin failed to plead membership in a protected class or discriminatory motive and that some claims were inapplicable.
- Martin attempted to file an amended complaint 31 days after service of Block’s 12(B)(6) motion but did not file the proposed amended complaint into the record; he instead filed a motion for leave to amend.
- The trial court held Martin missed the 28-day (plus 3-day mail) period to amend as of right, required leave, and denied leave as futile because the proposed amendment lacked operative facts showing discriminatory intent. The court then granted Block’s motion to dismiss the original complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Martin entitled to amend as of right after Block's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion? | Martin argued amendment as of right because Block had not filed an answer. | Block argued the 28-day rule (plus 3 mail days) applied and Martin missed the deadline. | Court: Martin missed the 31-day window, so leave was required. |
| Should the court grant leave to file the proposed amended complaint? | Martin claimed the amended complaint remedied deficiencies and pleaded a prima facie discrimination claim. | Block argued the proposed amendment was futile and failed to plead discriminatory intent or satisfy McDonnell Douglas-type requirements for reverse discrimination. | Court: Denied leave as the proposed pleading lacked operative facts showing discrimination; denial was not an abuse of discretion. |
| Did the original complaint survive the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion? | Martin asserted the amended complaint mooted the motion and cured defects. | Block maintained the original complaint failed to plead adverse action plus discriminatory intent under R.C. 4112.02. | Court: With no valid amendment filed, the original complaint failed to state a claim and dismissal was proper. |
| What pleading standard applies to R.C. 4112.02 discrimination claims at motion-to-dismiss stage? | Martin emphasized McDonnell Douglas framework supports his claim. | Block emphasized need for operative facts showing discriminatory intent even under liberal pleading rules. | Court: McDonnell Douglas is an evidentiary framework; at dismissal the complaint must give fair notice under Civ.R. 8 and allege operative facts supporting adverse action and discriminatory intent. |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes the burden-shifting framework for circumstantial discrimination cases)
- Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A., 534 U.S. 506 (plaintiff need only satisfy Rule 8 notice pleading; McDonnell Douglas is evidentiary not pleading standard)
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio adoption of McDonnell Douglas elements for R.C. 4112.02 claims)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Comm. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (federal Title VII jurisprudence guides R.C. Chapter 4112 interpretation)
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., 75 Ohio St.3d 578 (direct evidence standard for proving discriminatory intent)
- Taylor v. Academy Iron & Metal Co., 36 Ohio St.3d 149 (rule on amendment as of right prior to 2013 amendment; cited for procedural amendment principles)
- Aikens v. United States Postal Service Board of Governors, 460 U.S. 711 (ultimate inquiry is employer's discriminatory intent)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (example of direct-evidence showing discriminatory motive)