SIXTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RULES THAT AN EMPLOYEE’S CURSORY DISCUSSION WITH A CUSTOMER ABOUT A PENDING LAWSUIT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE PROTECTED ACTIVITY

In order to establish claims for retaliatory discharge, employees must, among other things, show that they engaged in “protected activity” and they were terminated as a result. It is well recognized that employees do not need to file formal complaints in order to engage in protected activity – instead, it is the simple assertion of…

Details

OHIO SUPREME COURT RULES THAT IT IS NOT PER SE RETALIATION FOR EMPLOYER TO SUE EMPLOYEE AFTER PREVAILING IN DISCRIMINATION/HARASSMENT SUIT BROUGHT BY EMPLOYEE

Ohio Supreme Court Rules That It Is Not Per Se Retaliation For Employer To Sue Employee After Prevailing In Discrimination/Harassment Suit Brought By Employee The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the issue of whether an employer’s lawsuit against an employee who had engaged in protected conduct can constitute retaliation under Ohio R.C.…

Details

HAMILTON COUNTY COURT OF APPEALS CONCLUDES THAT SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLIES TO AGE DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS UNDER R.C. § 4112.99

The Hamilton County Court of Appeals (Cincinnati) has taken the first step toward eliminating the confusion regarding applicable statute of limitations in age discrimination claims. In Meyer v. United Parcel Services, Inc., Hamilton Cty, No. C-060772, 2007-Ohio-7063, the Hamilton County Court of Appeals concluded that the Plaintiff had timely filed his age discrimination claim under…

Details