Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Employer Not Entitled to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Where Employee Alleges Specific Facts Relating to Disability Discrimination Claim

In the case of Francis v. Northeast Ohio Neighborhood Health Serv., 2021-Ohio-3928, the Eighth District Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in granting an employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings in a disability discrimination action.

Here, the employee argued that the employee was disabled and was denied the ability to work remote during the COVID-19 pandemic despite having under lying medical conditions. The employer moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing that the employee failed to state a cause of action. The trial court granted the employer’s motion.

The Court of Appeals reasoned that the employee alleged sufficient facts to establish that the employee fell within the Ohio Revised Code’s definition of disabled and that the employee alleged with specificity that the employee could perform the employee’s work with a reasonable accommodation. As such, the Court of Appeals found that the trial court erred in granting the employer’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.

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Your email address will not be published.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.