Vossman v. AirNet Sys., Inc.
113 N.E.3d 987
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Dan Vossman sued AirNet and supervisors for age discrimination under R.C. 4112.14 after his termination; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, which this court affirmed and the Ohio Supreme Court declined to review.
- Defendants moved for attorney fees under Ohio’s frivolous-conduct statute, R.C. 2323.51, alleging Vossman’s claim and his counsel’s continued prosecution were frivolous based primarily on admissions in Vossman’s April 26, 2012 deposition.
- A magistrate found defendants were entitled to fees for the period April 26–December 10, 2012; the trial court adopted that finding and later fixed the fee amount at $45,714.53.
- Appellants (Vossman and his counsel) objected and submitted affidavits from experienced employment-law attorneys asserting the case warranted further discovery and pursuit despite the deposition.
- The trial court overruled objections and entered a final appealable order; on appeal the Tenth District reversed the award of fees, concluding a reasonable lawyer could have continued the case under existing discrimination-law principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellants engaged in "frivolous conduct" under R.C. 2323.51(A)(2)(a)(ii) after the April 26, 2012 deposition | Vossman/counsel: deposition did not foreclose a viable discrimination claim; further discovery could develop evidence of pretext; competent counsel would continue | AirNet: plaintiff’s deposition admissions (violated a confidentiality directive; no belief age motivated termination) showed no evidentiary basis, so no reasonable lawyer would continue | Reversed fee award — court held under St. Mary’s/Manzer framework a reasonable lawyer could have continued; the record did not show that "no reasonable lawyer" would press the claim |
| Whether the trial court should have applied an objective standard ("no reasonable lawyer") without regard to counsel's subjective beliefs | Vossman: objective standard still allows reasonable pursuit when circumstantial evidence and discovery can develop pretext evidence | AirNet: objective standard supports fee award because existing law and plaintiff's admissions doomed the claim | Held that the objective standard applies but, on facts here, the claim was not frivolous under that standard |
| Whether evidence of shifting employer explanations and other circumstantial evidence justified continued prosecution | Vossman: employer changed explanations and communications suggest pretext; affidavits from employment lawyers show discovery often produces decisive evidence | AirNet: plaintiff’s admissions undermined any viable claim despite other materials | Held that allegations of shifting explanations and potential discovery sufficed to show a reasonable attorney could continue |
| Whether the fee award should stand despite plaintiffs not challenging the fee-amount determination on appeal | Vossman: challenge focused on entitlement; amount was not appealed | AirNet: amount determination was final and supported by magistrate evidence | Held entitlement reversed; amount determination rendered moot because fee entitlement itself was vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (establishes burden-shifting framework for discrimination cases)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (plaintiff must show reason was false and discrimination was real to prove pretext)
- Manzer v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 29 F.3d 1078 (6th Cir.) (identifies three ways plaintiff may rebut employer’s explanation, including indirect circumstantial methods)
- Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175 (Ohio 2004) (defines prima facie elements for age-discharge claim under Ohio law)
- Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146 (Ohio) (adoption of McDonnell Douglas approach in Ohio employment discrimination law)