Ward v. Oakley, 2013 Ohio 4762

In Oct. 2011, 16-year-old R.W. worked at Land of Illusion, a haunted theme park owned/operated by Oakley (owner) and B.A.O. Productions; Oakley had supervisory authority.
On Oct. 16, Oakley first raised birth-control topics with R.W. in a concession stand; minutes later he resumed sexually explicit/suggestive conversation in the gift shop, allegedly asking about her sexual experience, offering to take her to a hotel in Kentucky and to Las Vegas, and urging secrecy.
R.W. testified she felt “awkward,” “shocked,” and “scared,” cried when recounting the incident to friends/parents, and did not return to work; no contemporaneous counseling or medical treatment was shown in the record at time of deposition.
Oakley admitted discussing birth control but denied propositions; he claimed some remarks referenced non-sexual travel plans and denied inviting R.W. to have sex.
Ward (father) sued Oakley and B.A.O. Productions under R.C. 4112.02 for hostile work–environment sexual harassment and for intentional infliction of emotional distress; the trial court granted summary judgment for defendants.
The appellate court reviewed de novo, reversed summary judgment on the R.C. 4112.02 hostile-environment claim (genuine issues of fact remain) and affirmed summary judgment for intentional infliction of emotional distress (no evidence of ‘‘serious’’ emotional injury).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 4112.02 hostile work–environment claim survives summary judgment	Oakley’s sexually explicit propositions and pressure created an objectively severe hostile work environment for 16‑year‑old R.W., and Oakley was a supervisor/owner such that employer liability attaches	Conduct was isolated, not physically threatening or pervasive, and some statements were benign or denied; trial court should dismiss	Reversed as to harassment: material facts in dispute; a reasonable jury could find Oakley’s conduct sufficiently severe given victim’s age, supervisor status, and coercive context
Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress claim survives summary judgment	Oakley’s conduct was extreme/outrageous and proximately caused serious, debilitating emotional distress to R.W.	R.W. suffered upset but not ‘‘serious’’ emotional distress; no expert proof, limited symptoms, no timely counseling — summary judgment appropriate	Affirmed as to IIED: plaintiff failed to show serious/debilitating emotional injury as a matter of law (insufficient evidence of genuineness/severity)

Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169 (Ohio 2000) (elements and framework for hostile work‑environment under R.C. 4112.02)
Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (U.S. 1993) (objective/subjective components for hostile work‑environment analysis)
Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (U.S. 1986) (hostile work‑environment can be established by severe or pervasive conduct)
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (U.S. 1998) (hostile‑environment analysis considers social context and perspective of reasonable person in plaintiff’s position)
E.E.O.C. v. R&R Ventures, Inc., 244 F.3d 334 (4th Cir. 2001) (discusses subjective and objective harassment inquiries and factors to consider)