Pavlick v. Cleveland Hts.-Univ. Hts. Bd. of Edn.
2015 Ohio 179
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Pavlick was hired in Aug. 2012 as an HVAC tradesperson with a mandatory 90‑day probation; terminated on the last day, Jan. 18, 2013.
- Board contends termination stemmed from probationary performance issues (sitting with feet up, playing solitaire, lack of initiative, not a team player).
- Pavlick sued claiming disability discrimination under Ohio law (R.C. Chapter 4112) in April 2013.
- Key factual dispute: Pavlick asserts a permanent lifting restriction from prior lumbar fusion; record contains a handwritten note from Dr. Sawhny, an EEO/EMIS form filled by Pavlick, and a pre‑hire medical form from Dr. Dohar stating he could work without accommodation.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for the Board; on appeal the court reviewed whether Pavlick established a prima facie disability‑discrimination claim (actual disability, record of disability, or regarded as disabled).
- Appellate court affirmed, finding Pavlick failed to prove any of the three disability definitions and therefore could not make a prima facie case; summary judgment was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Pavlick had an "actual" disability under R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) | Pavlick: permanent lifting restriction from surgery substantially limits major life activity (lifting/working). | Board: lifting‑only restriction without evidence it substantially limits major life activities is not a disability. | Held: No actual disability; lifting restriction alone, unsupported, does not substantially limit major life activities. |
| Whether Pavlick had a "record of" disability | Pavlick: medical note and affidavit establish a history/record of impairment. | Board: record contains a contradictory pre‑hire medical form stating Pavlick can work; limited evidence of any medical history. | Held: No record of disability; evidence contradicted and affidavit alone insufficient. |
| Whether Board "regarded" Pavlick as disabled | Pavlick: EEO/EMIS form and alleged comments put Board on notice and show perception of impairment. | Board: did not review EEO/EMIS before termination; even if aware, a weight restriction does not automatically amount to being regarded as disabled; no evidence Board perceived him as limited in a broad class of jobs. | Held: No evidence Board regarded him as disabled; perception did not encompass a broad class of jobs. |
| Whether summary judgment was inappropriate because of pretext (termination reason) | Pavlick: termination may have been pretext for disability discrimination. | Board: termination supported by documented probationary performance issues; plaintiff failed to make prima facie case. | Held: Court disposed the appeal on prima facie failure; pretext issue was moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (summ. judgment standard for appeals)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Civ.R. 56 summary judgment test)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
- Horton v. Harwick Chem. Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (summary judgment principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (moving party’s burden in summary judgment)
- Toyota Motor Mfg., Kentucky Inc. v. Williams, 534 U.S. 184 (mere impairment does not equal disability)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 ("regarded as" standard requires perception to cover broad class of jobs)