Close Window

Defendant Not Entitled to Summary Judgment When a Genuine Issue of Material Fact Existed as to Whether Termination was Pretextual

In the case Meggitt v. Ohio Dep’t of Pub. Safety, 2020-Ohio-441, 2020 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 128, an Ohio common pleas court found that in a former employee’s age discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.14, a State employer was not entitled to summary judgment because a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the employer’s reason for terminating the employee, or its reasons for the prior escalating discipline, was pretextual (a union representative testified that she was not aware of any other employee being recommended for termination based upon a speeding ticket, and the employee performed sufficiently at her job duties). The court also opined that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the employee’s claim was barred by R.C. 4112.14(C) because the employer did not submit an arbitration agreement or provision into evidence, and the relevant paragraph of the last chance agreement did not in and of itself set forth an arbitration procedure sufficient to invoke R.C.  4112.14(C). To read this case, click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.