Smith v. Expressjet Airlines, Inc.
2015 Ohio 313
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Kristin Smith, an African‑American flight attendant, worked for ExpressJet from 2004 until her termination on March 29, 2011; she sued for race discrimination and damages.
- Prior to termination Smith had multiple attendance warnings (seven instances during an active 12‑month period per the record), including sick calls and UTCs.
- Employer identified a doctor’s note submitted by Smith with an altered date (verified by the doctor’s office) and also discovered two liquor‑policy violations where Smith failed to sell/sign out liquor and stopped selling liquor on assigned flights.
- Smith attended a mandatory investigatory meeting, admitted the attendance issues, did not deny the liquor violations, but was not directly asked about altering the doctor’s note. Termination letter cited attendance, liquor‑policy violations, and the altered note as the basis for dismissal.
- Smith moved forward alleging ExpressJet applied policies unevenly against similarly situated Caucasian employees and challenged discovery orders for medical records; the trial court granted summary judgment for appellees and discovery issues were rendered moot on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith established a prima facie case of race discrimination | Smith argued she was qualified and that similarly situated Caucasian employees were treated more favorably for comparable violations | ExpressJet argued Smith failed the qualifications/legitimate‑expectation and comparator prongs because her cumulative attendance, liquor violations, and altered note distinguished her | Court held Smith met the qualification prong but failed to show any similarly situated non‑protected employees; prima facie case not established |
| Whether appellees gave a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination | Smith contended termination was pretextual and policies were applied inconsistently; also disputed investigation procedures | ExpressJet pointed to objective, nondiscriminatory reasons: multiple attendance violations, liquor‑policy breaches, and a confirmed altered doctor’s note | Court held ExpressJet articulated legitimate reasons and Smith failed to show those reasons were pretext for discrimination |
| Whether comparators identified by Smith were sufficiently similar | Smith identified other Caucasian flight attendants who allegedly received lesser discipline | ExpressJet showed proposed comparators did not have the same combination of offenses or cumulative violations | Court held comparators were not similar in all relevant respects; comparator evidence insufficient |
| Whether discovery ruling on medical records warrants reversal | Smith argued the trial court erred in compelling medical records and refusing in camera review | ExpressJet sought medical records subject to a protective order and authorization; trial court limited disclosure under stipulated protective order | Court found discovery issues moot because summary judgment disposed of the case; no reversal on discovery was required |
Key Cases Cited
- Comer v. Risko, 106 Ohio St.3d 185 (Ohio 2005) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Marusa v. Erie Ins. Co., 136 Ohio St.3d 118 (Ohio 2013) (three‑part Civ.R. 56 summary judgment test)
- Brewer v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn., 122 Ohio App.3d 378 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (elements of prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas framework)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden‑shifting framework for disparate treatment claims)