X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 17 / 23

54 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

17 / 23

January Term, 2009

court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s holding that the action was barred by R.C. 4112.14(C).

{¶ 46} In rejecting Hopkins’s argument that “the grievance process lacked the indicia of impartiality that the term ‘arbitration’ implies,” the First District in Hopkins found persuasive the holdings of other courts that “the UPS grievance mechanism does possess the requisite procedural safeguards to be deemed arbitration.” 2000 WL 279228 at * 2. The court cited United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell (1981), 451 U.S. 56, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732, and VanDerVeer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. (C.A.6, 1994), 25 F.3d 403.9

{¶ 47} Those cited decisions both equated the UPS grievance-review process to an arbitration. See, e.g., VanDerVeer, 25 F.3d at 405 (terming the proceeding before the Ohio Joint State Grievance Committee in which the plaintiff’s termination was upheld an “arbitration”). Furthermore, Meyer has not taken issue in any way with this aspect of the court of appeals’ reasoning. We therefore accept the court of appeals’ holding that this case involves the functional equivalent of arbitration for R.C. 4112.14(C) purposes.

    • 2.

      Applicability of R.C. 4112.14(C) {¶ 48} In holding that Meyer’s age-discrimination claim under R.C.

    • 4112.99

      is not subject to R.C. 4112.14(C)’s terms, the court of appeals in the case

sub judice distinguished its decision in Hopkins because that case interpreted a different version of R.C. 4112.14(C) than is at issue in this case.10 The appellate

9. Our consideration of Hopkins goes solely to the issue of whether the UPS grievance procedure is the equivalent of arbitration and not to any other aspects of that decision.

10. {¶ a} The General Assembly attempted to amend R.C. 4112.14(C) in Am.Sub.H.B. No. 350, 146 Ohio Laws, Part II, 3867, 4007, to be effective January 27, 1997. That amendment would have changed R.C. 4112.14(C) as follows: “The cause of action described in division (B) of this section and any OTHER remedies available pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code UNDER THIS CHAPTER shall not be available in the case of discharges where the employee has available to him THE EMPLOYEE the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge or where a discharge has been arbitrated and has been found to be for just cause.”

17

Document info
Document views54
Page views54
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 23:47:34 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments