X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 11 / 23

65 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

11 / 23

January Term, 2009

4112.99, that statute does not govern the specifics of the claim because there is no gap to fill for such a claim. As was true prior to R.C. 4112.14’s incorporation into R.C. Chapter 4112, R.C. 4112.99 plays no specific role as to age-discrimination claims.

{¶ 30} The fundamental reasoning in Bellian regarding age-discrimination claims filed under R.C. 4112.99 retains its authority. It can readily be adapted to fit the current statutory framework because there are now two provisions in R.C. Chapter 4112 that specifically recognize court-filed actions for discrimination on

the

basis

of

age:

R.C.

4112.02(N)

and

4112.14.

It

is

fully

appropriate

to

incorporate

R.C.

4112.14

into

Bellian’s

stated

reasoning,

yielding

the

following

(adjusted material in brackets): “Here, R.C. 4112.99 is the Consequently, R.C. 4112.99 prevails over R.C. 4112.02(N)

more general statute. [and 4112.14] only if

there is a clear has not shown 4112.14], must

manifestation of legislative intent. Since the General Assembly such an intent, the specific provision[s], R.C. 4112.02(N) [and be the only provision[s] applied. * * * The only provision[s] in

  • R.

    C. Chapter

    • 4112.02

      [and

he or she is identified by N.E.2d 608.

4112 that recognize[] discrimination on the basis of age [are] R.C. 4112.14].” Thus, even if a plaintiff states reliance on R.C. 4112.99, “referring to the form[s] of age-based employment discrimination R.C. 4112.02 [and 4112.14].” Bellian, 69 Ohio St.3d at 519, 634

{¶ 31} Related sections of the Revised Code must be construed together, and in cases involving statutory construction, “ ‘our paramount concern is the legislative intent in enacting the statute.’ ” State v. Buehler, 113 Ohio St.3d 114, 2007-Ohio-1246, 863 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 29, quoting State ex rel. Steele v. Morrissey, 103 Ohio St.3d 355, 2004-Ohio-4960, 815 N.E.2d 1107, ¶ 21. See D.A.B.E., Inc. v. Toledo–Lucas Cty. Bd. of Health, 96 Ohio St.3d 250, 2002-Ohio-4172, 773

them. Sections 1, 2.02(B), and 3(A)(1) of Senate Bill 108, 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 384, 499, and 506.

11

Document info
Document views65
Page views65
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 04:57:24 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments