Herman Jacob Weber

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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.

labor & employmentcivil rights

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.

civil rights

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.

civil rightscriminal lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

civil rightslabor & employment

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

This case involves product liability claims brought by Ohio plaintiffs against Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation after Amanda Frey allegedly suffered multi-organ hypersensitivity and related complications from ingesting the anticonvulsant drug Trileptal. The plaintiffs asserted claims under Ohio law for manufacturing defect, design defect, inadequate warning, failure to conform to representations, and supplier liability, among others. The court granted partial dismissal, rejecting the manufacturing defect, design defect, and supplier liability claims against Novartis because the complaint contained only formulaic recitations of statutory elements without supporting facts sufficient under Twombly and because a manufacturer cannot be sued as a supplier under the relevant Ohio statute. The court denied leave to amend those claims as futile but allowed the inadequate warning and failure-to-conform claims to proceed against Novartis along with claims against the John Doe defendants.

torts & liabilityhealthcareprocedure

This case involves two married employees of the Ohio Department of Youth Services (DYS) and its Ohio River Valley Juvenile Correction Facility who sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that agency officials violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of association and to petition for redress by taking adverse employment actions against them. The actions included the termination of William Gaspers (later reversed by an arbitrator) after a weapon incident and media scrutiny of their marriage, followed by negative performance reviews and the transfer of Aldine Gaspers to a distant location after she testified at the arbitration hearing. The court granted Eleventh Amendment immunity to the state agencies and dismissed claims against several individual defendants, while also granting qualified immunity on certain claims where the asserted rights were not clearly established or causation was lacking. However, the court denied summary judgment on some First Amendment retaliation claims against remaining defendants, allowing those to proceed to trial for damages and injunctive relief. The core reasoning centered on the requirements for qualified immunity, the need for evidence of retaliatory motive, and the limits of clearly established constitutional protections in the public employment context.

civil rightsfree speechlabor & employment

This case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Dale Stewart, an Ohio inmate convicted in 2000 of two counts of sexual battery and sentenced to eight years in prison. The petition challenged the sentence on due process grounds, specifically that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to review and rebut victim impact statements relied upon by the sentencing court. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, denying the due process claim with prejudice after finding that the state court's adjudication was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, and that any error was harmless because the sentencing facts were reflected in other materials provided to the defense. The court terminated the case, denied a certificate of appealability, and denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an admiralty lawsuit by insurance companies against the United States, seeking recovery for damages paid after a barge allided with a pier at Lock and Dam 52 on the Ohio River due to alleged negligence in maintaining navigation buoys. The court granted the unopposed motion to dismiss the Army Corps of Engineers as a defendant. It denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike the summary judgment motion as untimely but proceeded to consider it, and ultimately denied summary judgment to the United States, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the cause of the allision, the parties' negligence, and the applicability of evidentiary presumptions that require resolution at trial.

torts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff William Kirkland sued Cincinnati Mayor Charlie Luken and other city officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985, along with state-law claims, alleging violations of his constitutional rights after he was removed from two city council meetings, arrested for criminal trespass, and convicted in state court. The case arose from events at a May 23, 2001 council meeting where Kirkland, after being called to speak on a non-agenda item, used the term “Nigganati,” was ruled out of order, left the podium, approached the mayor while shouting, refused multiple orders to leave, and was arrested. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact, that the mayor was enforcing a valid time, place, and manner restriction, and that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because no clearly established constitutional right was violated. The district court adopted the recommendation, dismissed the federal claims, and dismissed the state-law claims without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The core reasoning rested on the summary-judgment standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and the absence of evidence showing any constitutional violation.

civil rightsfree speechcriminal law

In Colbert v. Tambi, a state inmate filed a pro se federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging his 2004 Ohio convictions for cocaine trafficking and possession, raising claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, denial of appellate rights, and an unconstitutional search and seizure. The court considered the respondent's motion to dismiss, which argued the petition was untimely and that claims were unexhausted. The magistrate judge recommended dismissal, finding that the one-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) had expired without proper tolling, as the petitioner's delayed state appeal efforts did not extend the filing deadline, and that all claims remained unexhausted in state court. The district judge adopted the recommendation, granting the motion to dismiss the petition without prejudice on those procedural grounds.

criminal lawprocedurefederal power

Plaintiff Carolyn Reece sued AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals in a diversity action alleging that the cholesterol drug Crestor caused her rhabdomyolysis and subsequent kidney failure. She asserted claims for strict product liability based on failure to warn and for negligence, claiming the defendants failed to adequately warn about risks and the need for CK testing. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and excluded portions of the plaintiff's expert testimony. The decision rested on the absence of evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to any duty to recommend baseline or periodic CK testing or as to proximate causation between the alleged breach and the plaintiff's injury.

torts & liabilityhealthcare

In Hicks v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., plaintiff Lucy Hicks sued her former employer for age and gender discrimination under federal and Ohio law, disability discrimination, retaliation under the FMLA, and breach of Ohio public policy after her termination as a Senior Sales Consultant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that Hicks was fired for poor performance rather than discriminatory or retaliatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment only on the public policy claim, finding adequate statutory remedies available, but denied summary judgment on the remaining claims because disputed issues of material fact existed regarding whether the employer's performance-based reasons were pretextual, whether Hicks was regarded as disabled, and whether there was a causal link between her FMLA leave and termination.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case involved a former registered nurse at a state mental health facility who sued the Ohio Department of Mental Health and several supervisors, alleging Title VII race and ancestry discrimination, retaliation, FMLA violations, and related claims under §§ 1981 and 1983 based on negative evaluations, harassment, and discipline after her Appalachian background became known. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the entire action. It held that the Title VII claims were either untimely or failed on the merits because Appalachian ancestry is not a recognized protected class under federal law, that sovereign immunity and Eleventh Amendment protections barred the FMLA self-care claim against the state and officials, that individual defendants could not be liable under the FMLA, and that the remaining federal claims were precluded by immunity, waiver, or lack of a viable legal basis.

civil rightslabor & employmentfederal power

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision dismissing claims in a SIPA liquidation proceeding involving broker-dealer Donahue Securities, Inc. The trustee sued compliance principal Richard Chitwood for negligence, negligent supervision, and breach of fiduciary duty, alleging failure to prevent the firm's president from misappropriating customer funds and violating securities rules. The district court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the amended complaint failed to allege facts establishing a duty or fiduciary relationship between Chitwood and the customers, as there were no direct dealings and Ohio law does not recognize such liability based solely on the compliance principal role or securities regulations. The court rejected arguments that NASD/SEC rules or the firm's compliance manual created the necessary duties for these tort claims. The appeal was dismissed with prejudice.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

Plaintiff Sharyn Gruener sued her former employer Ohio Casualty and supervisor Kevin Sims, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) through failure to provide reasonable accommodations for her claimed disabilities and termination based on those disabilities, as well as violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Ohio wage laws for unpaid overtime while working as a PC/LAN Administrator. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that individual supervisors cannot be liable under the ADA, that Gruener was not disabled or qualified under the ADA, and that she was an exempt administrative employee not entitled to overtime; Gruener cross-moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment to defendant Sims on the ADA claim, finding no individual liability, but denied summary judgment to all parties on the remaining ADA and FLSA claims against Ohio Casualty because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether Gruener was disabled, qualified for her position, entitled to accommodations, and whether her role required discretion and independent judgment sufficient for the administrative exemption. The case will proceed to trial on the claims against Ohio Casualty.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose after plaintiff George Ventura, a former Chiquita employee, provided information to Cincinnati Enquirer reporters under a promise of confidentiality for a story on the company; the newspaper later produced source-related materials in response to a grand jury subpoena, which allegedly led to Ventura's identification and criminal indictment for accessing Chiquita voice mail. Ventura sued the Enquirer and its parent for breach of contract, tortious breach, promissory estoppel, promissory fraud, negligent hiring or supervision, and negligent disclosure. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on all claims. It reasoned that the produced materials, such as a post-it note with initials and phone numbers, did not directly identify Ventura as a source, that the newspaper had no vicarious liability for an ex-reporter's post-termination disclosures, and that the Shield Law and subpoena compliance shielded the defendants from liability for any indirect identification.

free speechcriminal lawtorts & liabilityprocedure

In Miller v. Commissioner of Social Security, a claimant sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the denial of Supplemental Security Income benefits, asserting that his impairments, including epilepsy, rendered him disabled. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, reversing the ALJ's non-disability finding at Step 3 of the sequential analysis and remanding the case to the Commissioner. The court held that the ALJ failed to adequately discuss the evidence relative to Listing § 11.03 for petit mal seizures, as required by precedent such as Clifton v. Chater, rendering the decision contrary to law and unsupported by substantial evidence. On remand, the ALJ was instructed to fully consider and explain whether the claimant satisfies the Listing criteria based on EEG findings, seizure frequency, and other record evidence.

federal powerhealthcare

In Mlay v. Internal Revenue Service, pro se plaintiff Mary Mlay sought a refund of her 1997 tax overpayment that the IRS had applied against joint tax liabilities from 1994 and 1995, claiming innocent spouse relief from those liabilities arising from her husband's unreported income. The IRS moved for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff knew or had reason to know of the understatements when signing the returns. The magistrate judge recommended denial of the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on the knowledge element due to lack of evidence about the plaintiff's level of involvement in family finances, and the district court adopted the recommendation, denied summary judgment, and set the case for further proceedings.

taxesprocedure