Thevenin v. White Castle Mgt. Co.
2016 Ohio 1235
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Thevenin, a White Castle watchman, injured his knee at work (Nov. 29, 2012), filed a BWC claim, and received medical work restrictions limiting walking to 3 hours per 8‑hour shift.
- White Castle proposed modified duty and various schedules to accommodate restrictions; Thevenin contends some schedules required rounds that exceeded his walking limits and reduced his hours.
- Thevenin emailed White Castle after an April 28, 2013 shift reporting he had violated his restrictions; he was suspended April 29 and discharged May 1, 2013 for alleged restriction violation and insubordination.
- Thevenin sued for retaliatory/discriminatory action under R.C. 4123.90, alleging adverse actions tied to his BWC claim and complaints.
- On summary judgment White Castle moved to strike portions of Thevenin’s affidavit and a 62‑page appendix attached to it as unsworn/unauthenticated; the trial court struck them and then granted summary judgment for White Castle.
- The Tenth District reversed, holding the trial court abused its discretion by striking the appendix/portions of the affidavit and erred by granting summary judgment without considering Thevenin’s submitted evidentiary materials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly struck portions of Thevenin's affidavit and attached documents for lack of authentication and personal knowledge | Thevenin argued his affidavit stated personal knowledge, attached the appendix (62 pages) as true and accurate copies, and referenced the exhibits throughout the affidavit | White Castle argued the appendix items were unsworn, uncertified, unauthenticated, and the affidavit contained inadmissible/self‑serving statements lacking personal knowledge | Court held trial court abused its discretion: the appendix was attached and the affidavit referenced it; some documents were authored or received by Thevenin and thus could be authenticated; striking was error |
| Whether trial court correctly granted summary judgment without considering Thevenin's appendix | Thevenin contended the unconsidered documents created genuine issues of material fact on causation/retaliation | White Castle maintained that even without the appendix there was no triable issue and that Thevenin’s affidavit was self‑serving/sham | Court held summary judgment was erroneous because Murphy requires trial courts to examine properly submitted materials; failure to consider Thevenin’s evidence was reversible error |
| Whether Thevenin’s affidavit was a sham or purely self‑serving such that it could not create a factual dispute | Thevenin argued the affidavit was supported by the appendix documents and his firsthand knowledge of employment events | White Castle argued contradictions with prior testimony and that unsupported assertions cannot defeat summary judgment | Court held affidavit was not a sham in gross: appendix supported many statements and Thevenin had firsthand knowledge of many events; trial court erred to strike on this basis |
| Whether, on the merits, a genuine issue exists on retaliatory discharge causation | Thevenin argued schedule changes, reduced hours, suspension and discharge closely followed his BWC claim and complaints and that schedules effectively forced him to choose between violating restrictions or not performing rounds | White Castle argued there were legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons (violation of restrictions/insubordination) and no causal link | Concurring judge (and majority by procedural reversal) explained that drawing all inferences for Thevenin presents triable issues on causation and pretext, so summary judgment would be improper after considering the excluded materials |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356 (Ohio 1992) (trial court must examine all appropriate materials filed before ruling on summary judgment)
- Pettiford v. Aggarwal, 126 Ohio St.3d 413 (Ohio 2010) (sham affidavit doctrine; contradictions with prior testimony require explanation)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 2006) (summary judgment standard and treatment of nonmoving party evidence)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (movant’s initial burden in summary judgment and the nonmovant’s reciprocal burden)
- Tokles & Son, Inc. v. Midwestern Indemn. Co., 65 Ohio St.3d 621 (Ohio 1992) (trial court should consider only admissible evidence on summary judgment)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion standard)