Roty v. Battelle Mem'l Inst.
101 N.E.3d 1128
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Roty and Neff (both over 40) sued Battelle and managers alleging age discrimination after being terminated in Battelle’s August–September 2013 reduction in force (RIF), including a disparate-impact theory.
- During discovery plaintiffs sought company-wide age and position statistics showing who was terminated and who was retained; Battelle resisted as irrelevant because termination decisions were made at the business-unit level.
- A magistrate (and the trial court on de novo review) limited discovery to birthdates/position titles for employees “included” in the RIF within the plaintiffs’ business unit, denying company-wide statistics; plaintiffs objected.
- The trial court later granted summary judgment to Battelle, concluding plaintiffs lacked direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence that age was a factor; plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate majority reversed the discovery ruling, holding company-wide statistics were discoverable where a company-wide RIF and evidence of HR involvement could reasonably lead to admissible evidence of disparate impact; the case was remanded for production of organization-wide age data.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in denying a motion to compel company-wide age/position statistics for the 2013 RIF | Roty & Neff: company-wide stats are relevant to disparate-impact claims and to testing Battelle’s claim that decisions were purely business-unit level; HR review suggests centralized influence | Battelle: termination decisions were made at business-unit level so company-wide stats are irrelevant and not discoverable | Reversed: company-wide statistics are discoverable where they are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence, given company-wide cost-cutting and HR involvement |
| Whether plaintiffs proved the fourth prong of prima facie case (RIF context) | Plaintiffs: additional circumstantial/statistical evidence would show disparate impact | Defendants: plaintiffs lacked direct/circumstantial/statistical proof | Moot on remand (not decided) |
| Whether RIF was administered as a pretext for age discrimination | Plaintiffs: RIF administration (HR guidance/central role) suggests pretext | Defendants: business-unit decisions negate pretext | Moot on remand (not decided) |
| Whether trial court should have considered plaintiffs’ expert affidavits at summary judgment | Plaintiffs: expert affidavits would support statistical claims | Defendants: affidavits were untimely or otherwise properly excluded | Moot on remand (not decided) |
Key Cases Cited
- Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 664 N.E.2d 1272 (Ohio 1996) (discovery rulings reversed when improvident and affecting substantial rights)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (framework for burden-shifting in discrimination cases)
- Wasserstrom v. Battelle Mem. Inst., 74 N.E.3d 827 (Ohio App.) (discussing RIF proof and statistical/circumstantial evidence)
- Evans v. Summit Behavioral Healthcare, 70 N.E.3d 1217 (Ohio App.) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing discovery rulings)