Spisak v. Salvation Army
2013 Ohio 5429
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Spisak, age 60 at termination, was daycare director and later director of youth services at The Salvation Army’s Hough Center.
- In 2010 the daycare closed due to low enrollment; the center kept operating the learning zone and created a new director of education position with lower pay.
- Spisak applied for the new director of education role but was not hired; the job went to Brian Pfeifer, age 35.
- Spisak was terminated in April 2011 after over 26 years of service, with the stated reasons including organizational reorganization and enrollment concerns.
- Spisak alleged age, disability, and retaliation discrimination; trial proceeded on these claims with competing explanations: management’s reorganization vs. discriminatory intent.
- Jury returned a 7-1 verdict for The Salvation Army; Spisak filed motions for new trial and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the verdict against Spisak supported by the weight of the evidence? | Spisak argues age discrimination was the determinative factor. | Salvation Army contends the decision followed from reorganization and enrollment decline, not age. | No abuse of discretion; evidence supported the verdict. |
| Were there procedural irregularities warranting a new trial under Civ.R. 59(A)(1)? | Irregularities undermined fair trial (e.g., Pfeifer testimony, remarks, and excluded letter). | Objections were sustained; no prejudicial impact; instructions clarified evidence. | No reversible irregularities; trial fair. |
| Did the court err in denying judgment notwithstanding the verdict? | The record shows age-based discrimination by The Salvation Army. | Evidence supported multiple reasonable inferences; jury could credit non-discriminatory explanations. | No error; jury could reasonably decide against discrimination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rohde v. Farmer, 23 Ohio St.2d 82 (Ohio 1970) (abuse-of-discretion standard for Civ.R. 59(A)(6))
- C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (Ohio 1978) (weight/credibility standards for new-trial motions)
- Drake v. Caterpillar Tractor Co., 15 Ohio St.3d 346 (Ohio 1984) (curative- instruction and prejudicial closing remarks—harmless error distinction)
- O’Connor v. Fairview Hosp., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98721 (Ohio 2013) (de novo review of motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict)