Mattessich v. Weathersfield Twp.
59 N.E.3d 629
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Richard Mattessich, a Weathersfield Township police officer since 1994, was suspended 30 days in 2010 after an internal incident alleging he misrepresented interactions with another officer; a settlement required a psychological evaluation.
- Dr. Heilman found Mattessich lacked cognitive/emotional stability for duty; Mattessich later took leave for depression, received treatment, and was cleared to return in September 2011.
- After returning, supervisors and colleagues reported concerns about his confidence and performance; meetings addressed counseling and whether he had attended it while on leave.
- Supervisors concluded Mattessich lied about counseling and other matters; he admitted (and later disputed) some admissions at internal meetings; a polygraph examiner reported indications of deceit.
- A Board of Trustees hearing (post-grievance) found misconduct and dishonesty and voted to terminate Mattessich on December 20, 2011.
- Mattessich sued under the Ohio Civil Rights Act (disability discrimination) and common-law claims; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Township, and the appellate majority affirmed, holding Mattessich failed to show the employer’s stated reason (dishonesty) was false or pretextual; one judge dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff established a prima facie "regarded-as" disability claim | Mattessich argued the Township knew of his depression and regarded him as disabled after his evaluation and leave | Township argued the termination was for dishonesty, not because he was disabled or perceived as such | Majority: Moot after pretext ruling; dissent: sufficient evidence that Township regarded him as disabled |
| Whether the employer's stated reason (dishonesty) was pretext for disability discrimination | Mattessich contended he did not lie about counseling/incident and that disability animus motivated termination | Township produced testimony and investigation showing lies; argued honesty is essential for police and termination was justified; employer had an "honest belief" in its reason | Court: No genuine issue of material fact — reason not shown false; summary judgment for Township; dissent disagreed, finding factual disputes precluded summary judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone, 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (employer may be liable if it "regards" an employee as disabled)
- Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc., 25 Ohio St.3d 279 (elements of prima facie disability discrimination claim)
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192 (burden-shifting framework; employer must articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Hood v. Diamond Prods., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons can include inability to safely perform essential functions)
- St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (to show pretext plaintiff must show employer’s reason was false and discrimination was the real reason)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for when disputes of material fact require trial)
- Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 ("honest belief" rule prevents finding pretext where employer reasonably believed its stated reason)
- Michael v. Caterpillar Fin. Servs. Corp., 496 F.3d 584 (assessment of employer's "honest belief" requires showing a reasonably informed, considered decision)