In the case of Ksiazek v. Columbiana Cty. Port Auth., 2021-Ohio-1267, the Ohio Seventh District Court of Appeals upheld a motion for summary judgment by the port authority in an age discrimination and retaliation case because Ksiazek could not establish that she was replaced by a substantially younger individual nor could she establish she was retaliated against for engagement in a protected activity.
The individual brought a claim of age discrimination against the port authority because a younger employee was hired two years before the individual’s firing and the individual was retaliated against after raising concerns as to the legality of the younger employee’s hiring.
The Court found both claims to be unfounded. The theory of age discrimination was invalid because the younger employee was hired two years prior and did not absorb any substantial job duties of the individual upon termination. The retaliation claim failed because questions about legality of hiring the younger employee are not a protected activity under R.C. 4112.02(I).
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.