Evans v. Western Elec. Co.

Citation50 Ohio App.2d 233,362 N.E.2d 671
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
Decision Date29 June 1976
Parties, 23 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 339, 4 O.O.3d 188 EVANS, Appellant, v. WESTERN ELECTRIC COMPANY, Appellee.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a complaint is made, pursuant to R.C. 4111.17, that wage discrimination because of sex has occurred, the period of limitation for filing the action is suspended during the time the complainant continues to be employed at the discriminatory rate.

Richard L. Innis, Columbus, for appellant.

Porter, Stanley, Platt & Arthur and David M. Selcer, Columbus, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This matter involves the appeal of a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County which sustained the defendant's motion to dismiss an action with prejudice, which action had been brought by the plaintiff, pursuant to R.C. 4111.17, alleging an unlawful pay discrimination by the defendant Western Electric Company against the plaintiff based upon her sex.

The single assignment of error claims that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's action with prejudice, in that such dismissal was based upon an improper construction of the limitation of action provision of R.C. 4111.17.

The section of the Ohio Revised Code upon which the plaintiff relies, in claiming the wage discrimination, and her claim for damages thereunder, is, as stated, R.C. 4111.17 which, in its entirety, is as follows:

'(A) No employer, including the state and political subdivisions thereof, shall discriminate in the payment of wages on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or ancestry by paying wages to any employee at a rate less than the rate at which he pays wages to another employee for equal work on jobs the performance of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which are performed under similar conditions.

'(B) Nothing in this section prohibits an employer from paying wages to one employee at a rate different from that at which he pays another employee for the performance of equal work under similar conditions on jobs requiring equal skill, effort, and responsibility, when the payment is made pursuant to any of the following: (1) A seniority system; (2) A merit system; (3) A system which measures earnings by the quantity or quality of production; (4) A wage rate differential determined by any factor other than race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or ancestry.

'(C) No employer shall reduce the wage rate of any employee in order to comply with this section.

'(D) The director of industrial relations shall carry out, administer, and enforce this section. Any employee discriminated against in violation of this section may sue in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover two times the amount of the difference between the wages actually received and the wages received by a person performing equal work for the employer, from the date of the commencement of the violation, and for costs, including attorney fees. The director may take an assignment of any such wage claim in trust for such employee and sue in his or her behalf. In any civil action under this section, two or more employees of the same employer may join as coplaintiffs in one action. The director may sue in one action for claims assigned to him by two or more employees of the same employer. No agreement to work for a discriminatory wage constitutes a defense for any civil or criminal actions to enforce this section. No employer shall discriminate against any employee because such employee makes a complaint or institutes, or testifies in, any proceeding under this section.

'(E) Any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Rock v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
    • 4 August 1981
    ...414 A.2d 30 (1980); Decker v. Board of Educ. of Elizabeth, 153 N.J.Super. 470, 474, 380 A.2d 285 (1977); Evans v. Western Elec. Co., 50 Ohio App.2d 233, 235-236, 362 N.E.2d 671 (1976); Devericks v. John Morrell & Co., 297 N.W.2d 325, 328 The commission also points to the fact that commentat......
  • Brady v. Safety-Kleen Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • 21 April 1989
  • Featzka v. Millcraft Paper Co.
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • 28 May 1980
    ...was without prejudice because it was based on a lack of jurisdiction. The basis of the court's decision was Evans v. Western Electric Co. (1976), 50 Ohio App.2d 233, 362 N.E.2d 671, which holds, in part, that recovery under R.C. 4111.17 is to be limited under subsection (E) thereof to any w......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT