X hits on this document

PDF document

[Cite as Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463.] - page 8 / 23

53 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

8 / 23

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

{¶ 21} “[W]e have held that where there is no manifest legislative intent that the general provision prevail over the specific provision, the specific provision applies. State v. Chippendale (1990), 52 Ohio St.3d 118, 556 N.E.2d

1134.

Here,

R.C.

4112.99

is

the

more

general

statute.

Consequently,

R.C.

4112.99

prevails

over

R.C.

4112.02(N)

only

if

there

is

a

clear

manifestation

of

legislative intent. Since the General Assembly specific provision, R.C. 4112.02(N), must

has be

not the

shown such an intent, the only provision applied.

Moreover, its agents

appellant alleged in Count I of his complaint that the ‘[d]efendant and have violated the provisions of Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised

Code.’ The on the basis

only provision in R.C. of age is R.C. 4112.02.

Chapter 4112 that recognizes discrimination Thus, regardless of whether appellant stated

reliance on R.C. 4112.02 or 4112.99, he had to be referring to based employment discrimination identified by R.C. 4112.02.” 519, 634 N.E.2d 608.

the form

of age-

69 Ohio

St.3d at

{¶ 22} Because R.C. 4101.17 had not yet been recodified as R.C. 4112.14 when Bellian was decided, this court’s observation in Bellian that R.C. 4112.02 was the only specific provision in R.C. Chapter 4112 recognizing age discrimination was an accurate one at the time.

3.

Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc.

{¶ 23} In Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc. (1994),

70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991, Cosgrove asserted that her employment had been terminated because of her pregnancy and filed a sex-discrimination claim in common pleas court under R.C. 4112.99. In reversing the judgments of the courts below that the complaint was time-barred, this court held at the syllabus that “R.C. 4112.99 is a remedial statute, and is thus subject to R.C. 2305.07’s six-year statute of limitations.” The lead opinion in Cosgrove relied in large part upon Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc. (1984), 14 Ohio St.3d 45, 14 OBR 440, 471

N.E.2d 471, paragraph two of the syllabus, which had considered what statute of

8

Document info
Document views53
Page views53
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 02:31:13 UTC 2016
Pages23
Paragraphs382
Words7431

Comments