2015 Ohio 3363
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Deborah Nist, age 60, worked for Ashland Chemical/Nexeo from 1995 until termination on November 15, 2012; she was a Senior Procurement Assistant with positive prior evaluations.
- In May 2012 Nist was assigned 30–40 additional suppliers, substantially increasing her workload and overtime; she was placed on a performance improvement plan (PIP) in July 2012.
- Nist reported anxiety from the workload; Caudill (supervisor) filed a workers’ compensation claim. PIP was extended, then Caudill later told Nist the PIP goals were met in October 2012.
- Nist was terminated in November 2012 for an alleged expedites issue; duties were redistributed among colleagues.
- A younger employee, Ryan Quinn (born 1988), was hired November 19, 2012 and later assumed some non-bulk purchasing duties for two of Nist’s former major suppliers.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to Nexeo on age discrimination and unpaid-overtime claims and struck portions of Nist’s affidavit; this appeal challenges the summary judgment and the affidavit-strike ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether summary judgment on age-discrimination claim was improper (prima facie replacement element) | Nist argues she established prima facie case: member of protected class, discharged, qualified, and effectively replaced by substantially younger Quinn | Nexeo argues duties were redistributed among multiple employees and Quinn did not assume a "substantial portion" of Nist’s bulk-purchasing duties | Court held Nist failed to prove replacement by a substantially younger person; summary judgment for Nexeo affirmed |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by striking portions of Nist’s affidavit | Nist contends the struck paragraphs were based on admissible personal knowledge (including information from Quinn’s deposition) and did not contradict her deposition | Nexeo contended paragraphs were hearsay or contradicted prior deposition testimony | Court sustained appeal on this point: striking paragraphs about replacement and other statements was an abuse of discretion; those paragraphs should not have been struck |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for indirect proof of discrimination)
- Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext and judgment as a matter of law principles in employment-discrimination cases)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (summary-judgment burden-shifting rules in Ohio)
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (2004) (elements of prima facie case under Ohio age-discrimination law)
- Lilley v. BTM Corp., 958 F.2d 746 (6th Cir. 1992) (spreading duties among remaining employees is not a replacement)