Tingle v. Arbors at Hilliard
2:09-cv-01159
| S.D. Ohio | Apr 21, 2011Background
- Tingle, a former registered nurse at Arbors at Hilliard, faced multiple DARs (6-27-08, 7-24-08, 10-23-08, 3-31-09) following a resident’s death during her shift.
- Arbors suspended Tingle after an investigation by the Ohio Department of Health into the incident and later reinstated her with back pay, but maintained a sealed 7-24-08 DAR.
- Tingle received a final 3-31-09 DAR leading to termination; she contests the accuracy of the information and the termination basis.
- Tingle filed OCRC/EEOC charges asserting age discrimination; OCRC found no probable cause.
- Arbors removed the 7-24-08 DAR from the file and argued the DARs and termination were for legitimate disciplinary reasons under its handbook.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tingle exhausted retaliation claims before filing suit | Intake forms referenced retaliation | Only age discrimination alleged; no retaliation exhaustion | Notwithstanding, exhaustion satisfied under liberal scope of investigation. |
| Whether federal Title VII retaliation claim survives summary judgment | Protected activity occurred; timing shows causation | No protected activity tied to actions; Title VII does not cover age discrimination | Federal claim fails; no evidence of protected activity causally linked to adverse action. |
| Whether state-law retaliation under Ohio Rev. Code 4112.02(I) survives | Protected activity related to age discrimination | No connection between activity and adverse actions; no pretext | State-law retaliation claim fails; Arbors entitled to summary judgment. |
| Whether Ohio Rev. Code 3721.24(A) retaliation claim survives | Protected activity included information provided during ODH investigation | Adverse actions occurred independent of protected activity | Summary judgment for Arbors on § 3721.24(A) claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Abbott v. Crown Motor Co., Inc., 348 F.3d 537 (6th Cir. 2003) (prima facie retaliation burden is light; shifting burdens apply)
- Nguyen v. City of Cleveland, 229 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2000) (prima facie burden and causal linking guidance)
- Hill v. Nicholson, 383 Fed. Appx. 503 (6th Cir. 2010) (EEOC/charge exhaustion scope and nonjurisdictional requirement)
- Dixon v. Ashcroft, 392 F.3d 212 (6th Cir. 2004) (exhaustion liberal construction; scope of investigation test)
- Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (Supreme Court 2006) (jurisdictional nature of certain prerequisites depends on congressional intent)
- Weigel v. Baptist Hosp. of E. Tenn., 302 F.3d 367 (6th Cir. 2002) (scope of retaliation claims and evidence of causation)