2023 Ohio 3123
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Appellants (V.T. Larney Ltd., Equity Management LLC, and Larney) manage rental properties; in Oct. 2017 Donna Sargeant inquired about renting a Hubbard home with her two children but was not contacted back after declining to bring the children to a showing; the unit was later rented to applicants without children.
- Sargeant filed a HUD fair-housing complaint (Jan. 30, 2018); HUD referred it to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC). OCRC discovered a tenant rule reading “No pets or animals of any kind (Resident or Visiting).”
- OCRC issued a three-count complaint alleging violations of R.C. 4112.02(H)(1) (familial-status denial), amended (H)(8) (inquiring about familial status), and (H)(19) (failure to accommodate disabilities involving assistance animals).
- An ALJ heard the case, found violations of R.C. 4112.02(H)(1), (H)(8), and (H)(19), and recommended cease-and-desist, $18,293.02 actual damages, a $10,000 civil penalty, and fair-housing training; the Commission adopted the ALJ report.
- Appellants petitioned for judicial review; the Trumbull County Common Pleas Court affirmed the Commission’s order. Appellants appealed raising (1) pleading/jurisdiction defects, (2) lack of jurisdiction/charge for the (H)(19) claim and alleged mischaracterization as (H)(7), and (3) a constitutional challenge to R.C. 4112.051(D) (right to jury on damages).
- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: it rejected most jurisdictional and constitutional challenges but held the trial court erred in stating the ALJ found a violation of (H)(7) (instead of (H)(19)) and remanded to determine whether the record contains reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supporting the (H)(19) finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCRC failed to affirmatively plead jurisdictional facts (charge, conciliation, probable cause) | OCRC did not plead the necessary jurisdictional facts with sufficient specificity to invoke jurisdiction | OCRC’s complaint satisfied notice pleading; special‑proceeding requirement to plead jurisdictional facts does not demand heightened particularity; appellants waived objections | Court: appellants failed to show OCRC’s pleading defect; they waived challenges by not disputing jurisdictional findings at the administrative level; SMJ upheld |
| Whether OCRC had authority to pursue an (H)(19) claim absent a charge alleging that practice (i.e., whether OCRC could self‑initiate investigation into (H)(19)) | (Appellants) OCRC lacked jurisdiction to investigate/bring (H)(19) because the underlying charge alleged only familial‑status conduct, not assistance‑animal accommodations | OCRC: charge need not identify each statutory subsection; conciliation and preliminary investigation procedures were satisfied | Court: majority rejected appellants’ procedural jurisdictional attack as waived; remanded to trial court to assess whether record contains substantial evidence supporting the (H)(19) violation; dissent argued OCRC lacked jurisdiction to pursue (H)(19) without a charge |
| Whether the trial court erred in stating the ALJ found a violation of R.C. 4112.02(H)(7) (advertising/statements) rather than (H)(19) (reasonable‑accommodation) | Appellants: ALJ found (H)(19), not (H)(7); trial court mischaracterized ALJ findings | OCRC: contended both provisions were implicated in pleadings/analysis (arguments varied) | Court: trial court abused discretion by relying on a mistaken premise that ALJ found (H)(7); reversed that aspect and remanded to evaluate the (H)(19) evidence |
| Whether R.C. 4112.051(D) is unconstitutional because damages were not jury‑decided (Article I, §5) | Appellants: statute denies jury trial on damages and is unconstitutional; electing civil action imposes an unconstitutional choice | OCRC: constitutional challenge must be raised appropriately; appellants did not elect a civil jury action and thus lack standing to mount the challenge; as‑applied claims must be raised administratively | Court: appellants lacked standing to challenge R.C. 4112.051(D) because they did not elect a jury trial; only a facial challenge could be entertained and appellants did not prevail |
Key Cases Cited
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. Case W. Res. Univ., 76 Ohio St.3d 168 (1996) (trial‑court and appellate standards for affirming discrimination findings supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence)
- Marysville Exempted Village Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Union Cty. Bd. of Revision, 136 Ohio St.3d 146 (2013) (party in a special statutory proceeding must affirmatively plead jurisdictional facts)
- In re Complaint of Pilkington N. Am., Inc., 145 Ohio St.3d 125 (2015) (administrative orders rendered without subject‑matter jurisdiction are void and may be challenged at any time)
- Beatrice Foods Co. v. Porterfield, 30 Ohio St.2d 50 (1972) (parties may stipulate facts sufficient to confer jurisdiction; jurisdictional facts may be uncontested)
- State ex rel. Republic Steel Corp. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 44 Ohio St.2d 178 (1975) (a completed and unsuccessful conciliation attempt is a jurisdictional prerequisite to issuance of a complaint under R.C. 4112.05(B))
- Reading v. Pub. Util. Comm. of Ohio, 109 Ohio St.3d 193 (2006) (facial constitutional challenges need not be raised administratively; as‑applied challenges must be raised before the agency)
- Bank of Am., N.A. v. Kuchta, 141 Ohio St.3d 75 (2014) (standing inquiries involve jurisdiction over a particular case, not subject‑matter jurisdiction)
- Giebeler v. M & B Assocs., 343 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir.) (elements of reasonable‑accommodation claims under federal housing law)