Pittman v. Parillo
2017 Ohio 1477
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parents Raymond and Ann Pittman sued Tam-O-Shanter, SRD, coach/employee Nick Parillo, supervisor Mike Mankowski, attorney Anthony Spinazze, and others after Ann alleged months of nonconsensual "flirting," staring, and leering by Parillo at a youth hockey facility and the Pittmans reported it.
- Alleged incidents span July 2013–May 2014 and consist primarily of looks, smiles, brief interactions, and two short email exchanges; no physical touching or explicit remarks were alleged or documented.
- The Pittmans sought relief under Ohio’s public-accommodations statute (R.C. 4112.02(G)), retaliation (R.C. 4112.02(I)), aiding/abetting (R.C. 4112.02(J)), civil conspiracy, declaratory and injunctive relief, and negligence.
- Defendants responded with motions for summary judgment supported by discovery showing no corroboration of harassment and that the conduct consisted of ambiguous, non-violent acts and social gossip among community members.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to all defendants; the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed, adopting the trial court’s detailed opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parillo's alleged conduct violated R.C. 4112.02(G) (public-accommodation sexual harassment) | Ann's repeated encounters of "flirting," staring, leering, and attempts at eye contact created an unwelcome, sex‑based, hostile environment that denied full enjoyment of the facility | Conduct was nonsevere, nonpervasive, largely subjective, not physically threatening, and not clearly unwelcome; Pittman never complained for months; employer took steps once notified | Summary judgment for defendants — the conduct was not sufficiently severe or pervasive nor shown to be unwelcome as a matter of law, so no §4112.02(G) violation |
| Whether defendants retaliated in violation of R.C. 4112.02(I) | Various emails, comments, ostracism, circulation of the complaint, roster decisions, and other actions constituted materially adverse acts that would dissuade a reasonable person from complaining | Alleged acts were petty, social gossip, or nonmaterial in the recreational (nonemployment) context; no objective showing of material harm or adverse action | Summary judgment for defendants — alleged acts were not objectively materially adverse under §4112.02(I) given the voluntary recreational context |
| Whether third parties aided or abetted harassment under R.C. 4112.02(J) | Spinazze and others facilitated or participated in the harassment or in cover‑up/retaliatory conduct | No evidence they participated in or facilitated underlying unlawful harassment by Parillo; aiding/abetting requires active participation in the unlawful act | Summary judgment for defendants — because underlying harassment claim failed, aiding/abetting claim also fails |
| Whether plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory/injunctive relief or survived negligence/civil conspiracy claims | Plaintiffs sought declarations and injunctive relief as well as negligence and conspiracy based on alleged harassment and retaliation | Without an underlying unlawful act under R.C. 4112.02, there is no basis for declaratory/injunctive relief, negligence, or conspiracy liability | Summary judgment for defendants on these claims as well — no underlying statutory violation or duty breach established |
Key Cases Cited
- Lorain Nat’l Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127 (9th Dist. 1989) (standard of appellate de novo review of summary judgment)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, Inc., 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (Ohio 1998) (summary judgment burden and Civ.R. 56 principles)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment standard articulated)
- Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2000) (elements of hostile‑environment sexual‑harassment claim)
- Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (factors for determining severe or pervasive harassment)
- Lysyj, Ohio Civil Rights Comm. v. Lysyj, 38 Ohio St.2d 217 (Ohio 1974) (purpose and liberal construction of public‑accommodation statute)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s burden on summary judgment)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (summary judgment standards)
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (U.S. 2006) (materially adverse standard for retaliation claims)