Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 2021 Ohio 4578

Tony Moody, a Sierra Leone native and naturalized U.S. citizen, worked as a Therapeutic Program Worker at ODMHAS’s Twin Valley facility from 2013 until his April 2019 resignation.
Moody received several disciplinary actions: multiple reprimands and a one-day suspension in 2015; a three-day working suspension (for tardiness) in August 2018 after prior discipline; he filed OCRC/EEOC charges in Sept. 2018 (EEOC adopted OCRC findings; right-to-sue issued Oct. 2019).
In Dec. 2018, ODMHAS investigated Moody after he reported coworkers’ misconduct; investigators concluded his allegations were unsubstantiated and charged him for failing to file incident reports, leading to a pre-disciplinary finding of just cause (possible five-day suspension or termination); Moody resigned before further discipline.
Moody sued in the Court of Claims alleging race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation; the trial court granted summary judgment to ODMHAS on all claims.
On appeal, the Tenth District affirmed summary judgment on discrimination claims but reversed as to the retaliation claim and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discipline (2015 actions and Aug. 2018 three-day suspension) and Dec. 2018 investigations constitute an adverse employment action for race/national-origin discrimination	Moody: discipline was disparate (non‑white/native-born treated worse) and three-day suspension was adverse because it advanced progressive discipline	ODMHAS: suspensions were paid, followed progressive-discipline, caused no loss of pay/seniority/responsibilities and thus were not materially adverse	Court: 2015 actions and Aug. 2018 paid three-day suspension were not materially adverse for discrimination purposes; discrimination claims fail (affirmed)
Whether Dec. 2018 investigations were retaliatory for filing OCRC/EEOC charge	Moody: investigations occurred ~2 months after EEOC charge and followed his protected activity; investigations and potential discipline could deter charging — proffered reason was pretextual (incident-reporting practices disputed)	ODMHAS: investigations were lawful responses to Moody’s failure to file incident reports and thus non-retaliatory legitimate reasons	Court: Moody established prima facie retaliation (protected activity, employer knowledge, adverse action, temporal proximity); genuine issue whether employer’s incident-report rationale was pretext — summary judgment improperly granted for ODMHAS on retaliation (reversed)

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (establishes burden-shifting framework for indirect-evidence discrimination)
Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (1981) (clarifies employer's burden of production in McDonnell Douglas framework)
St. Mary's Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (1993) (describes effect when employer rebuts prima facie case)
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006) (retaliation adverse-action standard broader than discrimination standard)
Presley v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., [citation="675 F. App'x 507"] (6th Cir. 2017) (paid short suspensions do not necessarily constitute materially adverse employment actions)
Arnold v. Columbus, [citation="515 F. App'x 524"] (6th Cir. 2013) (suspension/transfer can be materially adverse depending on consequences)
Szeinbach v. Ohio State Univ., [citation="493 F. App'x 690"] (6th Cir. 2012) (investigation can be an adverse action in retaliation claims)
Williams v. Akron, 107 Ohio St.3d 203 (2005) (Ohio discrimination statute interpreted consistent with Title VII)