In the case of Roper v. City of Cincinnati, S.D.Ohio No. 1:22-cv-652, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119495 (July 11, 2023), a federal district court held that the firefighter plead sufficient facts to survive a motion to dismiss by the city when the firefighter brought racial discrimination claims and a retaliation claim when the city failed to promote a firefighter.
In this case, the firefighter argued that (1) the city created a hostile work environment by evaluating poorly and reprimanding the firefighter due to the firefighter’s race; (2) the city did not promote the firefighter because of the firefighter’s race; (3) the city took retaliatory actions against the firefighter, in the form of not promoting the firefighter, after the firefighter reported various forms of discrimination to human resources; (4) that the city violated Ohio’s whistleblower statute (R.C. 4113.52) by not promoting the firefighter after the firefighter reported the city for unethical and unlawful behavior; and (5) that the city violated numerous public policies including, but not limited to, R.C. 3737.221(B), which the firefighter enshrines a policy against instructing subordinates to break traffic laws. In response, the city argued that (1) the firefighter failed to exhaust the firefighter’s administrative remedies through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”); (2) the firefighter failed to plead a prima facie case of failure to promote, and the city promotes based on a state statute that provides for employees’ placement on an eligibility list; (3) the firefighter failed to plead a prima facie case of retaliation, (4) the firefighter failed to make his report orally and then submit a written report before filing a whistleblower complaint, and (5) the law does recognize a claim for violating public policy. The appellate court agreed with the firefighter on the failure to promote and retaliation claims and with the city on the hostile work environment, whistleblower, and public policy claims.
In support of its decision in favor of the firefighter on the failure to promote claim, the federal district court explained that the complaint needs only to infer discrimination. The federal district court further explained that the firefighter pled that the firefighter was a racial minority and was qualified to be promoted but was passed over.
In support of its decision in favor of the firefighter on the retaliation claim, the federal district court explained that the firefighter had pled that the firefighter had raised concerns and then was denied promotions after raising the concerns, enough to infer retaliation.
In support of its decision in favor of the city on the hostile work environment claim, the federal district court explained that the firefighter failed to first exhaust his administrative remedies through the EEOC when the firefighter’s complaints alleged only workplace harassment and not a hostile work environment.