13 March 2014

A KingCast Blast from the Past: Gerald L. Michael v. City of Whitehall,134 Ohio App. 3d 719; 732 N.E.2d 398 (1999) Affirmed in Part Reversed in Part.

Another handicap victory from the West Side of Columbus, Al & Jessie Hamm v. Gahanna was the first more on that when I find the link. I just came across this because I have family in Whitehall and I was telling them how fucked up it is there..... and this is case in point. Naturally the Court opinion only tells part of the story but you'll get the picture.

Appellant began working as a police officer for appellee on December 22, 1969.   Appellant claims in his complaint that he developed “physical stress-related problems” following the murder of a fourteen-year-old juvenile who was involved in a criminal investigation with appellant.   Appellant states that in July 1990, he “voluntarily transferred from the detective bureau to the uniform division at the request of his psychiatrist.”   Appellant also states that appellee “commenced a series of abusive, unlawfully discriminatory actions,” which included “banishing” him from the police department, refusing to “timely issue [appellant's] sick-time wages,” and ordering him to “relinquish his departmental weapon, identification, and any and all city-issued equipment.”   Appellant contends that appellee forced him to resign from his employment as a police officer in October 1991 [SNIP].....

Appellant stated in his second cause of action that appellee's “[in]actions constitute a violation of Ohio Revised Code [Chapter] 4112 under * * * disability/handicap * * * rubrics.”   Appellant's claim was filed within the six-year statute of limitations period of former R.C. 4112.99.   Appellant also stated in his complaint that after 1988, he developed “major depression” and “physical stress-related problems.”   Appellant further stated that he was given a handwritten note “declaring that he was a liability to the city and he was taken out of uniform and assigned to desk duty, against his wishes.”   Appellant claimed in his complaint appellee forced him to resign “through economic duress.”   Appellant further claimed that he “at no time exhibited any threatening, violent or dangerous behaviors at work and has not ever been counseled as such.” After reviewing appellant's complaint, we find that appellant sufficiently stated a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6) and 8(A).   

Appellant was not required to state in his complaint facts alleging that he could safely and substantially perform his job tasks at the time of the alleged adverse employment action.   Therefore, we find that the trial court erred in dismissing appellant's handicap discrimination claim.   However, because appellant failed to sufficiently argue whether the trial court erred in dismissing his age discrimination and retaliation claims, we sustain the trial court's judgment dismissing these claims.   Appellant's assignment of error is overruled in part and sustained in part. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and this cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings in this matter according to this opinion. - See more at: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/oh-court-of-appeals/1008401.html#sthash.UC1R5sXl.dpuf

No comments: