In the case McGinty v. Ohio State Univ., 2020-Ohio-4315, 2020 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 125, an Ohio Court of Claims found that the magistrate properly concluded that the Chief Marketing Officer would have made the decision to terminate plaintiff absent any impermissible motive on her part, as there was sufficient evidence that plaintiff was not meeting her expectations and it was evident that once she determined plaintiff was not aligned with her vision, she made the decision to terminate him.
In this reverse race and sex discrimination case under R.C. Chapter 4112, a black female co-worker was not a valid comparator to plaintiff (a white male employee), as their responsibilities differed, nothing suggested that she had any authority over plaintiff or over the marketing department in which they worked as a whole, and plaintiff was the only employee in the department’s number two position and was paid considerably more than the other marketing assistant vice presidents.
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.