In the case Grubach v. Univ. of Akron, 2020-Ohio-3467, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 2411, an Ohio appellate court held that in a student’s breach of contract claim, summary judgment for the university was in error because the university refused to submit the student’s complaint to the grievance process outlined in the student handbook. However, summary judgment was warranted in favor of the university on the age discrimination claim, R.C. 4112.02, because the adverse decision related to his studies and not conditions of employment as a teaching assistant. Lastly, summary judgment was also warranted on the retaliation claim, R.C. 4112.02, because the claim of protected conduct related exclusively to discriminatory practices in the academic setting that had only a tangential effect on his status as an employee.
In this case, a graduate student alleged age discrimination and retaliation against the university. Even though appellant’s classwork, teaching, and research was well received, things took a turn for the worse when appellant sat for his comprehensive written examination. In July 2016, appellant took his written comprehensive examination. One of the three reviewing professors failed him.
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.