An issue which has plagued the plaintiffs and defense bar alike is the complex statutory framework for age discrimination claims in Ohio. This is due to the fact that Ohio’s statute for age discrimination contains four separate provisions that cover age discrimination under Chapter R.C. 4112. Depending on the path chosen by the plaintiff, age discrimination claims brought pursuant to Ohio statutes have caused confusion concerning remedies, the statute of limitations and administrative prerequisites.
A brief review of R.C. §4112, et seq., illustrates the complex patchwork of the statutory design. In terms of remedies, 4112.02(N) is the most expansive provision, but it is the most restrictive in terms of the statute of limitations. R.C. 4112.14 has a six-year statute of limitation, but provides limited remedies in the form of lost wages and benefits, reinstatement, costs, and attorneys’ fees. However, these remedies are not available if an employee had the opportunity to arbitrate the discharge and it was found to have been for just cause. In contrast, R.C. 4112.02(N) has only a 180-day statute of limitations, but allows for the full list of available remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages. R.C. 4112.99 provides a cause of action to seek redress for any form of discrimination identified in Chapter 4112, which includes age discrimination. Finally, R.C. 4112.05 allows an individual to file an administrative charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, but acts as an absolute bar to filing a civil action in court for age discrimination.
With so many provisions for plaintiffs to choose from, confusion and lack of clarity was inevitable. Moreover, as R.C. 4112.99 does not include either a statute of limitations or possible remedies, inventive plaintiffs were seeking the best of both worlds, essentially combining the six year statute of limitations in R.C. 4112.14 with the full gambit of remedies in R.C. 4112.02(N).
The Ohio Supreme Court recently helped clear up some of the confusion. On June 2, 2009, the Court held that R.C. 4112.99 does not create its own cause of action, but rather, an age claim brought under R.C. 4112.99 is merely subject to the specific provisions of 4112.02 and 4112.14. Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc. 122 Ohio St.3d 104, 2009-Ohio-2463 (June 2, 2009).
In Meyer, UPS terminated Meyer’s employment as a package-delivery driver on December 1, 2003, when Meyer was 48 years old. Meyers filed a grievance which was denied and his termination upheld. He filed a complaint for retaliation on May 7, 2004, and amended his Complaint in July 2005 to add an age discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.99, a year and a half after his termination.
UPS moved for summary judgment, alleging that R.C. 4112.14 barred Meyer’s age discrimination claim because his discharge was upheld in his grievance. The trial court denied UPS’s motion, holding that Meyer’s age claim was brought pursuant 4112.99, and therefore, the grievance did not bar his claim. At trial, the jury found for Meyer and awarded him back pay, compensatory damages, punitive damages, prejudgment interest, post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees and reinstatement. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s determination that 4112.14’s bar is not applicable to an age discrimination brought under 4112.99.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed and held that Meyer’s termination had been upheld in a proceeding that was the equivalent of arbitration for R.C. 4112.14 purposes. Therefore, Meyer was barred from pursuing his age discrimination claim. The Court explained that the “gap filling” of R.C. 4112.99 is a more general statute and, as such, R.C. 4112.02 and R.C. 4112.14 prevail over R.C. 4112.99 absent a clear manifestation of legislative intent. In other words, even if the complaint relies on 4112.99, the plaintiff is referring to the age-based employment discrimination identified by R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.14 and must elect either 4112.02 or 4112.14 as the statute under which the claim is being brought.
The implications of Meyer on age discrimination claims in Ohio is substantial. While the statute of limitations was not explicitly addressed in the Meyer decision, as claims under R.C. 4112.99 are brought under either 4112.02 or 4112.14, the implications of Meyer reaffirm that Ohio has a short window for plaintiffs to seek a full slate of damages for age discrimination. Even where a plaintiff brings a claim pursuant 4112.99, the plaintiff only has 180 days to pursue an age discrimination claim and seek all available remedies. Thereafter, any age discrimination claim brought up to six years hence would be restricted to 4112.14’s limited damages. The Ohio Supreme Court closed one of the loopholes in Ohio’s statutory age discrimination framework.
For further information regarding the implications of the Meyer decision or other general inquiries regarding Ohio’s civil rights statutes, please contact one of the members of our Employment Practices Group.