In Brooks v. Dent, plaintiff Stephen Brooks, a white former University of Cincinnati HR director, alleged reverse race discrimination and retaliation after his 2007 termination, claiming that new HR chief Gary Dent (African American) favored Black employees in pay and promotions, ignored Brooks' complaints about misclassifications and improper raises, and fired him without cause following those objections. The court denied defendants' summary judgment motion on the reverse discrimination and retaliation claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, finding that Brooks established a prima facie case and raised sufficient evidence that the university's stated reasons (budget, customer feedback, and leadership concerns) were pretextual. It dismissed the separate First Amendment retaliation claim as undisputed. The decision allows the case to proceed to trial on the remaining counts.
In this case, plaintiff Michael Mauer sued his former employer Deloitte & Touche for age discrimination and retaliation under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Ohio law after his termination in 2008, following performance reviews and management discussions about low performers. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing insufficient evidence to support the claims. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on both the discrimination and retaliation counts based on evidence including performance ratings, management speeches about shedding low performers, and handwritten notes from a July 2008 meeting indicating that executives viewed the plaintiff as disruptive after he retained counsel and planned to sue. The ERISA claims had been voluntarily dismissed earlier. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining claims.
The case involved the Board of Education of the City School District of Cincinnati appealing under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) a state administrative ruling that its proposed 2007-2008 Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for a preschool child with moderate to severe hearing loss failed to provide a free appropriate public education. The parents had sought a more intensive private oral-education placement after disagreeing with the district's offered services, which included limited hours of specialized support. After de novo review of the record and adopting the magistrate judge's unopposed report, the district court affirmed the State Level Review Officer's decision and dismissed the action.
In Nerswick v. CSX Transportation, Inc., plaintiff Thomas Nerswick sued CSX and two of its police officers after they arrested and detained him on charges of receiving stolen property when he removed and sold two pieces of metal he found obstructing a road near his business; the charges were later dropped by the grand jury. The plaintiff asserted federal claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of his Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, along with state constitutional claims and Ohio tort claims for false arrest, malicious prosecution, assault, battery, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case. The court reasoned that the officers' actions were supported by the circumstances, that the brief questioning and detention did not amount to constitutional violations or abuse of process, and that plaintiff failed to present evidence showing extreme or outrageous conduct or other elements required for the tort claims.
In this case, plaintiff Frank Hedges, a long-time warehouse employee at Coca-Cola Enterprises, sued the company under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, alleging a racially hostile work environment based on multiple incidents of harassment by coworkers and supervisors spanning from the 1990s through 2008. Defendant CCE moved for summary judgment, arguing that the incidents were not severe or pervasive enough to create an actionable hostile environment and that it had taken appropriate corrective action. The court denied the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the pervasiveness of the alleged harassment, CCE's knowledge of a racially hostile environment at the facility, and whether the company exercised reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct the behavior or whether Hedges unreasonably failed to report incidents.
The case involved homeowners Dennis and Leann Packard who purchased a standard flood insurance policy from Farmers Insurance after being advised it would cover damage to their home from earth shifting due to rain, similar to prior damage on their property. When their claim was denied because the policy did not cover such losses, they sued for negligent misrepresentation and fraud in the procurement of the policy under state law. The court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment without prejudice and remanded the case to state court, reasoning that the claims were state-law tort claims arising from policy procurement rather than under the federal flood insurance program, leaving no federal subject matter jurisdiction and making state court the appropriate forum based on factors of judicial economy and comity.
business & regulatorypropertyproceduretorts & liability
