In the case O’Donnell v. Ne. Ohio Neighborhood Health Servs., 2020-Ohio-1609, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1583, an Ohio appellate court found that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for directed verdict on plaintiff’s age discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.02(A). By failing to renew its motion for a directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, defendant forfeited the right to raise as error on appeal the court’s failure to direct a verdict in its favor, and it did not explain how or why the circumstances rose to the level of plain error. Defendant never objected to or raised any issue regarding inconsistent verdicts before the trial court, and even if the issue was considered on appeal, plain error would not be found. There was no plain error in the trial court’s submission of the issues of back pay and front pay damages to the jury, under the particular facts and circumstances, plaintiff’s testimony was sufficient for the trial court to submit the issues to the jury.
In this case, plaintiff filed an age discrimination claim against defendant-employer. The trial court found for the plaintiff and awarded back and front pay. Defendant-employer claimed that this award was in error because plaintiff’s health would have prevented him from working full time after he was terminated.
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.