Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Myers
2014 Ohio 144
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Podiak, disabled with two animal assistant dogs, rents 110 Nimitz Drive in Riverside; Myers is her neighbor at 108 Nimitz Drive and Overlook Mutual Homes manages the property.
- The Commission alleged Myers harassed and intimidated Podiak and her dogs, mocking sign language, making noises to trigger the dogs, and making false complaints to management and police.
- Myers allegedly interfered with Podiak’s rights related to housing due to disability and caused her to move out and seek different housing.
- The Commission filed a housing discrimination suit under R.C. 4112.02(H) seeking injunction, damages, and fees after an unsuccessful administrative resolution.
- The trial court granted Civ.R. 12(B)(6) dismissal, concluding R.C. 4112.02(H) targets housing transactions and neighbors cannot violate it.
- The court of appeals reverses in part: H12 claim sustained; H1, H15, H16 claims dismissed; remands for further proceedings on the surviving H12 claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 4112.02(H)(1) apply to neighbor conduct? | Podiak argues statute covers neighbor harassment. | Myers argues statute covers housing transactions only. | Not applicable |
| Does R.C. 4112.02(H)(15) apply to neighbor conduct? | Podiak contends discriminatory practices include neighbor actions. | Myers contends no housing transaction occurred to trigger (H)(15). | Not applicable |
| Does R.C. 4112.02(H)(12) support a neighbor-liability claim for interference with fair-housing rights? | Podiak can be coerced, intimidated, or interfered with by neighbor conduct. | Myers contends no such independent claim exists absent a violation of other provisions. | Claim stated and survives |
| Does R.C. 4112.02(H)(16) support a neighbor-discrimination claim? | Harassment could constitute discrimination in terms, conditions, or privileges or in services. | Myers argues it is not limited to post-acquisition duties and may be unlikely here. | Survives (part of the First Assignment of Error sustained) |
Key Cases Cited
- Lysyj, 38 Ohio St.2d 217 (1974) (statutory construction under 4112 case guidance)
- Dworning v. Euclid, 119 Ohio St.3d 83 (2008) (remedial nature of Chapter 4112)
- Smith v. Friendship Village of Dublin, Ohio, Inc., 92 Ohio St.3d 503 (2001) (remedial construction of 4112)
- Akron Home Med. Servs. v. Lindley, 25 Ohio St.3d 107 (1986) (ejusdem generis doctrine applicability)
- Bloch v. Frischholz, 587 F.3d 771 (7th Cir. 2009) (availability vs. habitability in FHA similar context)
- Evans v. Tubbe, 657 F.2d 661 (5th Cir. 1981) (citations for interpretation of anti-harassment provisions)