2014 Ohio 2935
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff Rick Roghelia, a Hopedale Mining employee, lost his left thumb in a 2006 work injury, returned to work in modified roles, and had a second hand surgery in April 2007.
- In May 2007 Roghelia missed multiple shifts; he faxed a doctor’s excuse on May 22 but admits he did not call in for other missed days; he was terminated on May 24, 2007 for absenteeism.
- Roghelia sued alleging disability discrimination based on Hopedale’s perception of his impairment (regarded-as disability).
- The trial court denied summary judgment but, after plaintiff’s case at trial, granted defendant’s motion for directed verdict, concluding no reasonable juror could find Roghelia was perceived as disabled or that perception motivated termination.
- On appeal the Seventh District held the trial court applied the wrong legal standard for “perceived” disability under Ohio law and that material evidence (testimony and emails) could support differing jury conclusions about perception and pretext.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court applied the correct legal test for "regarded as" (perceived) disability under R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) | Roghelia: Ohio law requires only that the employer perceived a physical/mental impairment, not that it perceived a substantial limitation of a major life activity | Hopedale: The court should apply the test requiring perception of a substantial limitation (aligned with pre‑2008 ADA cases) | Court: Reversed — the correct Ohio test does not require perception of a substantial limitation; perception of an impairment suffices |
| Whether evidence permitted a reasonable juror to find Hopedale perceived Roghelia as disabled | Roghelia: accommodations, job assignments, and company emails referencing his injury support an inference Hopedale perceived an impairment | Hopedale: Accommodations show employer tried to help, not that it regarded him as disabled; testimony denies perception of disability | Court: Reversed — viewing evidence favorably to Roghelia, reasonable minds could differ; perception was a jury issue |
| Whether Hopedale’s stated reason (excessive absenteeism) was pretext for discrimination | Roghelia: Termination for absenteeism could be pretext given injury history and communications referencing his injury | Hopedale: Termination was for legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (policy violations; prior counseling) | Court: Reversed — factual disputes (attendance records, emails, counseling documentation) permit a jury to find pretext |
Key Cases Cited
- Columbus Civ. Serv. Comm. v. McGlone, 82 Ohio St.3d 569 (sets out prima facie elements for disability discrimination)
- Hood v. Diamond Products, Inc., 74 Ohio St.3d 298 (burden-shifting framework: employer must articulate legitimate nondiscriminatory reason)
- Genaro v. Central Transport, 84 Ohio St.3d 293 (federal materials interpret R.C. 4112 only when statutes align)
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, 527 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court discussion of "regarded as" under pre-2008 ADA)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (framework for showing pretext)
- St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff must show employer's stated reason was false and that discrimination was the real reason)