|
|
Maxey v. Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
| 2025-00095JD | Civ. R. 56, Motion for Summary Judgment, Negligence, Physical Injury. Plaintiff alleged that he suffered physical injuries when a corrections officer discharged chemical mace in his housing unit. Defendant presented evidence that all the alleged actions taken in relation to plaintiff’s claims arose at Lake Erie Correctional Institution, a private prison operated by CoreCivic, an independent contractor. The court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact that CoreCivic was an independent contractor, not an agent of defendant; thus, defendant could not be held liable. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted. | Sadler | |
5/27/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2130 |
|
Burson v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
| 2025-00174JD | Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; disability discrimination; failure to accommodate; adverse action; termination; hostile work environment; retaliation. Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on plaintiff’s claim for disability discrimination because plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination. Defendant produced evidence of legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for disciplining plaintiff, denying his request for remote work, and terminating his employment, and plaintiff failed to produce evidence of pretext. Additionally, plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim based upon failure to accommodate likewise failed as a matter of law because the undisputed evidence showed that plaintiff caused the breakdown in the interactive process between the parties. Moreover, plaintiff’s claim for retaliation failed as a matter of law because, even assuming plaintiff could prove a prima facie case of retaliation, defendant articulated legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons for the challenged actions, and plaintiff did not produce evidence demonstrating that those reasons were a pretext for retaliation. Finally, plaintiff’s claim for hostile work environment failed as a matter of law as the record did not contain evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that any of defendant’s alleged conduct was discriminatory, severe, physically threatening, or interfered with plaintiff’s work performance. Judgment for defendant. | Sadler | |
5/22/2026
|
6/8/2026
| 2026-Ohio-2131 |
|
Brown-Austin v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility
| 2025-00781PQ | On remand from the court on requester’s motion for contempt, special master recommended requester’s motion for contempt be denied as moot, in part, because respondent satisfied the court’s order to produce properly redacted records, but recommended requester’s motion for contempt be granted, in part, because respondent failed to timely satisfy the court’s order to repay requester his filing fee. | Morris | |
4/28/2026
|
5/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1715 |
|
Gardner v. Mantua
| 2025-00937PQ | The court overruled respondent’s objections because the special master did not err in recommending that: (1) requester not be sanctioned; (2) respondent’s motion to strike be denied pursuant to R.C. 2743.75(E)(2); and (3) respondent’s motion for costs be denied because R.C. 149.43(C)(6) does not apply in the court of claims. Further, the court overruled requester’s objections because the special master did not err in recommending dismissal for non-compliance with R.C. 149.43(C). Therefore, requester’s complaint was dismissed. | Sadler | |
4/28/2026
|
5/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1716 |
|
Gardner v. N. Royalton
| 2025-01014PQ | The court found that requester’s production claim was rendered moot by respondent producing the requested records during the pendency of this case. The court determined that the special master did not err in her recommendation to assess costs to requester because there was no violation of the Public Records Act. Requester’s objections were overruled and his complaint was dismissed. | Sadler | |
4/27/2026
|
5/11/2026
| 2026-Ohio-1722 |
|