Reported Cases


Babcock Swine v. Shelbco, Inc., 126 F.R.D. 43 (S.D. Ohio W.D. 1989). Plaintiff, Babcock Swine, Inc., was awarded sanctions as a result of defendant's failure to respond to interrogatories under Civil Rule 33 where defendant improperly claimed the interrogatories required narrative responses.

Anderson v. Ohio Dept. of Insurance, 58 Ohio St.3d 215 (Ohio Sup. Crt. 1991). Plaintiff, shareholder of an HMO liquidated by ODI, was found to have no cause of action for negligent liquidation.

CCCA v. Luken,  923 F. Supp. 1026 (S.D. Ohio E.D. 1996). Trial court determined that Plaintiff, a public access TV station, had no standing to drag an unwilling Defendant before the court on a declaratory judgment action to determine whether a program was obscene.  However, in a subsequent related lawsuit where the Defendant was the Plaintiff, claiming denial of 1st Amendment rights, and a jury found for the cable TV station.

Winchester Coal. for Responsible Dev. v. United States HUD, 999 F. Supp. 1058 (S.D. Ohio 1998) Homeowners' committee challenged the action of CMHA under the Administrative Procedures Act and 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding moving public housing to adjacent property without proper planning.  The district court granted CMHA's motion for summary judgment which was upheld by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in WCRD v. CMHA, unreported, Case No. 98-3433 (6th Cir., Oct. 3, 1999).

Thomas v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation & Correction, 36 F. Supp.2d 1005 (S.D. Ohio E.D. 1999). Plaintiff claimed she was the victim of sexual and racial harassment and that she was illegally wiretapped by her supervisor. The court dismissed her claims on summary judgment finding that she could not prove the wiretap actually worked at the time in question.

Berge v. Columbus Community Cable Access, Inc., 136 Ohio App.3d 281 (10th Dist., Franklin Co. 1999), cert. den., 88 Ohio St.3d 1503, 727 N.E.2d 925 (2000). A wheelchair bound Plaintiff's $550,000 jury verdict was overturned as being motivated by passion and prejudice, and trial court's grant of Defendant CCCA's motion for jnov and new trial was sustained. Further, the appeal court sustained Defendant CCCA's objection to the trial court's refusal to allow submission of damage interrogatories to the jury. The appeal court noted that where discriminatory action leads to physical injury, medical damages, pain and suffering, lifestyle changes, and loss of income, these damages may be recovered under O.R.C. 4112.99 upon proper proof. Id. at 319-320. Further, the court has a duty to submit damage interrogatories. Also, the aliunde rule applies with respect to alleged juror misconduct. This decision was criticized in Bukta v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc., 359 F. Supp.2d 649 (N.D. Ohio 2004) with respect to the holding that Ohio does not recognize any public policy tort violation where there is an ADA claim or disability discrimination claim under O.R.C. 4112.02.

Brown v. BKW Drywall Supply, Inc., 305 F. Supp.2d 814 (S.D. Ohio E.D. 2004). The Defendant's motion for summary judgment granted against Plaintiff who alleged violations of the ADA in connection with loin pain hematuria syndrome where the Plaintiff failed to give the Defendant employer adequate notice of the disability condition, and where the condition was intermittent, and where the Plaintiff was able to work in similar employment soon after his termination of employment from the Defendant organization. Further, the trial court determined that a corporate officer may rely upon certain records in order to obtain personal knowledge for purposes of  making an affidavit under Rule 56(c)).

Slane v. MetaMateria Partners, L.L.C., 176 Ohio App.3d 459, 892 N.E.2d 498, 2008-Ohio-2426 (10th Dist., Franklin Co.). The Plaintiff and former employee claimed disability discrimination as a result of cancer that he alleged was caused by exposure to chemicals in the work place. The appeal court found that although cancer may be a disability, it was not in this case because the Plaintiff  had successful surgery to reconstruct his jaw, and he was terminated for unrelated reasons, unrelated to canerphobia.

Mullins v. U. S. Bank, 296 Fed. Appx. 521 (6th Cir., Oct. 15, 2008). The Plaintiff claimed that her supervisor refused to allow her to leave work to receive pre-natal care resulting in the pre-mature delivery and death of her child, but the appeal court found the Plaintiff should not have anticipated that she would be fired for leaving work, and, therefore, she could not prove pretext regarding the reasons for her alleged termination.