Browder v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr.

• Decision Date: 20 July 2022
• Docket Number: 2021-00328JD
• Citation: 2022 Ohio 3088
• Parties: ROBERTA D. BROWDER Plaintiff v. OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant
• Court: Ohio Court of Claims

2022-Ohio-3088

ROBERTA D. BROWDER Plaintiff
v.
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION Defendant

No. 2021-00328JD

Court of Claims of Ohio

July 20, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 9/2/22

DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE

SCOTT SHEETS MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

{¶1} Plaintiff's complaint asserts claims for sexual harassment, hostile work environment, assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and retaliation. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Kenneth Myers (Myers), while in defendant's employ, engaged "in a pattern of sexual misconduct and harassment" including "unwanted sexual advances and behavior." The complaint alleges that Myers' actions included making sexual comments and touching her on more than one occasion, including on intimate areas of her body. On June 30, 2022 and pursuant to R.C. 2743.02(F), the magistrate conducted an evidentiary hearing to consider and determine whether Myers is entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86. Through counsel, plaintiff and defendant both appeared and presented evidence. Myers did not appear at the hearing. Plaintiff testified as did one witness for defendant, Joanna Factor. The magistrate also admitted several documentary exhibits into evidence. As discussed below, the magistrate recommends that the court issue a determination that Mr. Myers is not entitled to civil immunity pursuant to R.C. 9.86 and that the courts of common pleas have jurisdiction over any civil actions that may be filed against him based upon the allegations of this case.

Findings of Fact

1

{¶2} Plaintiff worked at defendant's Allen-Oakwood Correctional Institution (AOCI) from January of 2019 to November of 2019. From January of 2019 until July of 2019, plaintiff endured repeated, often severe, unwanted and uninvited sexual comments and advances from Myers. At the time, Myers acted as defendant's Safety and Health Coordinator. His job duties were to coordinate and/or help ensure AOCI's compliance with applicable health and safety standards such as OSHA standards, fire safety standards, and EPA standards. Plaintiff, who was employed as a Health Information Technologist, had to interact with Myers in performing her job duties. However, Myers was not plaintiff's supervisor.

{¶3} Plaintiff testified extensively regarding Myers' aggressive harassment and the documents admitted into evidence as well as portions of Ms. Factor's testimony corroborate plaintiff's testimony. The magistrate found plaintiff to be entirely and unquestionably credible.

{¶4} Myers' harassment of plaintiff was chronic and involved a range of unacceptable conduct. Myers made comments to plaintiff regarding her body and appearance including comments about her butt, breasts and undergarments. He also made sexually suggestive comments. For instance, he would suggest that plaintiff sit on his lap. He pulled at plaintiff's clothing, rubbed against her, and touched her. This included rubbing her shoulders and touching her on or near her breasts. Myers told plaintiff that he watched her and other women at AOCI using the facility's cameras. Myers would block plaintiff's path and/or position himself in a way that forced plaintiff to touch him if she attempted to move past him. In one of the vilest incidents, Myers asked plaintiff to come into his office and to look at something on the facility's cameras. While sitting at his desk chair, Myers then told plaintiff to "sit on this" and pointed at his crotch area where plaintiff observed that Myers had an erection. Myers' conduct sometimes occurred in...