X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 16 / 23

59 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

16 / 23

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 42} “The cause of action described in division (B) of this section and any remedies available pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code shall not be available in the case of discharges where the employee has available to the employee the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge or where a discharge has been arbitrated and has been found to be for just cause.”

{¶ 43} In resolving this issue, the court of appeals first held that Meyer’s termination had been upheld in a proceeding that was the equivalent of arbitration for R.C. 4112.14(C) purposes but then held that R.C. 4112.14(C) did not apply, because an age-discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.99 is not subject to R.C. 4112.14(C). 174 Ohio App.3d 339, 2007-Ohio-7063, 882 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 26-30. For the reasons explained below, we accept the first holding but must reject the second.

1.

Arbitration

{¶ 44} The court

of

appeals

summarily

determined

that

Meyer’s

termination had been upheld in a proceeding that qualified as “arbitration” under the statute by stating: “It is undisputed that Meyer contested his discharge in the grievance procedure established for employees at UPS. This grievance procedure was the functional equivalent of arbitration.” Id., 174 Ohio App.3d 339, 2007-

Ohio-7063, 882 N.E.2d 31, at ¶ 28.

The court of appeals supported this statement

by

citing

its

previous

decision

in

Hopkins

v.

United

Parcel

Serv.,

Inc.

(Feb.

11,

2000), 1st Dist. No. C-990392, 2000 WL 279228.

{¶ 45} In Hopkins, the employee challenged his termination by UPS through established grievance procedures, and after the termination had been upheld at a local hearing, he appealed that result to “the Ohio Joint State Committee” in Columbus. The Ohio Joint State Committee grievance panel, which was made up of two UPS representatives and two union representatives, conducted a hearing and “held that Hopkins’s termination was for just cause.” Hopkins then filed an R.C. Chapter 4112 action in common pleas court. The

16

Document info
Document views59
Page views59
Page last viewedTue Dec 06 22:03:23 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments