X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 18 / 23

66 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

18 / 23

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

court stated, “The plain language of R.C. 4112.14(C) does not now bar previously arbitrated cases from proceeding to trial under R.C. 4112.99,” thus placing Meyer’s R.C. 4112.99 claim of age discrimination “outside the ambit of R.C. 4112.14(C).” 174 Ohio App.3d 339, 2007-Ohio-7063, 882 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 29-30.

{¶ 49} The court of appeals misinterpreted the reach of R.C. 4112.14(C). Our holding earlier in this opinion 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 establishes that R.C. 4112.14(C) must apply to Meyer’s age- discrimination claim. Although Bellian and the Cosgrove concurrence analyzed R.C. Chapter 4112 principally with regard to statute-of-limitations issues, the reasoning expressed in those opinions also encompasses other age-discrimination provisions of the chapter beyond statute-of-limitations considerations.

{¶ 50} Even though Hopkins interpreted a different version of the statute, it does not follow that R.C. 4112.14(C) does not apply here. Pursuant to our cases

discussed

above,

claim is

brought

the statute applies pursuant to R.C.

even though Meyer’s age-discrimination

4112.99.

The

age-discrimination

claim

undoubtedly described in

falls within the ambit of R.C. 4112.14(C) as a “cause of action division (B) of” R.C. 4112.14. As noted in Dworning v. Euclid, 119

Ohio St.3d 83, 2008-Ohio-3318, 892 N.E.2d 420, ¶ 41, the General Assembly

{¶ b} This attempted amendment of R.C. 4112.14(C) was invalidated when this court in State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062, paragraphs two and three of the syllabus, held House Bill 350 unconstitutional in its entirety. After the decision in Sheward, the General Assembly repealed the invalidated amendment in 2001 Sub.S.B. No. 108, 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 382, 485, effective July 6, 2001. Senate Bill 108 revived the previous language of the statute and did not reenact the House Bill 350 modifications to R.C. 4112.14(C) invalidated in Sheward except for the change to gender-neutral language. See Sections 1 and 3(A)(3) of Senate Bill 108, 149 Ohio Laws, Part I, 385 and 506.

{¶ c} The court in Hopkins applied the House Bill 350 version of R.C. 4112.14(C), which stated “under this chapter.” The court of appeals in the case sub judice held that the reasoning in Hopkins did not apply because the relevant statutory language is “ ‘any remedies available pursuant to sections 4112.01 to 4112.11 of the Revised Code shall not be available.’ ” (Emphasis sic.) 174 Ohio App.3d 339, 2007-Ohio-7063, 882 N.E.2d 31, ¶ 29, quoting R.C. 4112.14(C).

18

Document info
Document views66
Page views66
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 08:15:31 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments