X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 12 / 23

67 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

12 / 23

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

N.E.2d 536, ¶ 28-29 (related statutory provisions must be construed in pari

materia).

We must “ ‘avoid that construction which renders

meaningless

or

inoperative.’

D.A.B.E.,

Inc.,

at

26,

quoting

State

a ex

provision rel. Myers

  • v.

    Spencer Twp. Rural School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1917), 95 Ohio St. 367, 373, 116

  • N.

    E. 516; see R.C. 1.47. To allow the general provisions of R.C. 4112.99 to

prevail over the specific provisions of R.C. 4112.02(N) and 4112.14 would ignore the relevant statutes and would turn the framework of R.C. Chapter 4112 relating to age-discrimination claims on its head. That R.C. 4112.08 requires a liberal construction of R.C. Chapter 4112 does not allow courts to ignore clear statutory directives.

{¶ 32} Consistently with the statutory framework for age-discrimination claims set forth within R.C. Chapter 4112, and with our precedents interpreting that framework, we hold that an age-discrimination claim brought pursuant to R.C. 4112.99 is subject to the substantive provisions of R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.14.

B. Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex {¶ 33} In Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 115 Ohio St.3d 311, 2007- Ohio-4921, 875 N.E.2d 36, at the syllabus, we recently held that “[a] common- law tort claim for wrongful discharge based on Ohio’s public policy against age discrimination does not exist, because the remedies in R.C. Chapter 4112 provide complete relief for a statutory claim for age discrimination.” The court of appeals in the present case interpreted Leininger as establishing that an age-discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.99 is not subject to those provisions of R.C. Chapter 4112 that are specific to age discrimination. See 174 Ohio App.3d 339, 2007-Ohio- 7063, 882 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 24, stating that this court in Leininger, at ¶ 31, “reiterated its prior holding that had rejected the argument that the specific-remedies provisions of subsections within the chapter prevail over the more general provisions of R.C. 4112.99.” However, the court of appeals’ statement is a

12

Document info
Document views67
Page views67
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 11:56:14 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments