X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 20 / 23

63 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

20 / 23

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

job-opening or discharge situations and to seek only remedies set forth in R.C. 4112.14.

{¶ 53} Although our discussion of Leininger touched upon these issues, we decline to more specifically address UPS’s argument for two reasons. First, because we have determined that Meyer’s age-discrimination claim is barred by R.C. 4112.14(C), there is no need to consider whether the claim, or some aspects of the claim, might also be barred by statute-of-limitation or limitation-of-

remedies concerns.

See PDK Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Drug

Enforcement Administration (C.A.D.C.2004), 362 F.3d 786, 799 (Roberts, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment), in which now Chief Justice John G. Roberts expressed “the cardinal principle of judicial restraint – if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more.”

{¶ 54} Second, an important component of UPS’s argument in this regard is that the trial court erred in allowing Meyer to amend his complaint to add his age-discrimination claim, because that claim should not relate back under Civ.R. 15(C). However, UPS failed to adequately pursue this precise issue in order to preserve it for appeal. We may therefore assume that Meyer’s age-discrimination claim related back to the filing of his original complaint for purposes of Civ.R. 15(C) and was thus filed within the 180-day limitation period of R.C. 4112.02(N). Consequently, this case is an unsuitable vehicle to specifically address potential issues regarding the interplay of the applicable statutes of limitations and issues regarding election of remedies or limitation of remedies.

{¶ 55} Finally, for the same reasons, we decline to address the argument advanced by amicus curiae Ohio Management Lawyers Association that all age- discrimination claims filed under R.C. 4112.99 should be governed by the 180- day statute of limitations of R.C. 4112.02(N).

therefore observe that Meyer’s argument that all age-discrimination claims under R.C. 4112.99 are subject to a six-year statute of limitations, based on the Cosgrove syllabus’s holding, is flawed.

20

Document info
Document views63
Page views63
Page last viewedThu Dec 08 04:45:13 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments