X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 19 / 23

62 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

19 / 23

January Term, 2009

has, through R.C. 4112.14(C), expressed the intent regarding age-discrimination claims “to prefer arbitration over other remedies when arbitration is available.”

{¶ 51} We hold that pursuant to R.C. 4112.14(C), when the discharge of an employee has been arbitrated and the discharge has been found to be for just cause, the discharged employee is barred from pursuing an action for age discrimination. We conclude that R.C. 4112.14(C) applies to bar Meyer’s age- discrimination claim, because his discharge was arbitrated and was found to be for just cause. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals on the dispositive issue.

D. Other Issues {¶ 52} UPS asserts that R.C. 4112.02(N) applies to more situations than R.C. 4112.14 does (i.e., R.C. 4112.02(N) applies to “rights relative to discrimination on the basis of age,” while R.C. 4112.14 applies only to age discrimination in any job opening or discharge), that the two statutes contain different remedies (i.e., R.C. 4112.02(N) provides for “any legal or equitable relief that will effectuate the individual’s rights,” while R.C. 4112.14(B) provides more limited remedies), and that those statutes have been held to have different statutes of limitations. 11 UPS accordingly argues that the logical way to give effect to the entirety of the statutory framework governing age-discrimination claims is to allow a plaintiff who fails to file his or her age-discrimination claim within the 180-day statute of limitations of R.C. 4112.02(N) but who does file the claim within six years of its accrual to pursue an age-discrimination claim only in

11. {¶ a} UPS has conceded in this case, both in this court and in the court of appeals, that an age- discrimination claim covered by R.C. 4112.14 is governed by a six-year statute of limitations, as this court determined in Morris when that statute was previously codified at R.C. 4101.17. 14 Ohio St.3d 45, 14 OBR 440, 471 N.E.2d 471, at paragraph two of the syllabus.

{¶ b} The source of the holding that a six-year statute of limitations applies to an age- discrimination claim that is covered by R.C. 4112.14 is Morris’s holding regarding former R.C. 4101.17 and is not Cosgrove’s holding expressed in that case’s syllabus regarding R.C. 4112.99 for claims other than those for age discrimination. 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991. We

19

Document info
Document views62
Page views62
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 21:09:22 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments