Grooms v. Supporting Council of Prev. Eff.

• Decision Date: 23 April 2004
• Docket Number: No. 20199.,20199.
• Citation: 809 NE 2d 42,157 Ohio App.3d 55
• Parties: GROOMS, Appellant, v. SUPPORTING COUNCIL OF PREVENTATIVE EFFORT, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

157 Ohio App.3d 55

2004-Ohio-2034

809 NE 2d 42

2004-Ohio-2034

GROOMS, Appellant, v. SUPPORTING COUNCIL OF PREVENTATIVE EFFORT, Appellee.

No. 20199.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery County.

Decided April 23, 2004.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Don Brezine, for appellant.

Diane L. Gentile and Audrey S. Adams, for appellee.

BROGAN, Judge.

{¶ 1} John Grooms appeals from the trial court's entry of summary judgment against him and in favor of appellee Supporting Council of Preventative Effort ("SCOPE") on his state-law claims of race discrimination, disability discrimination, and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

{¶ 2} Grooms advances three assignments of error on appeal. First, he contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on his race-discrimination claim. Second, he argues that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on his disability-discrimination claim. Third, he asserts that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on his claim alleging wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

{¶ 3} Upon review, we agree that the trial court erred in sustaining SCOPE's motion for summary judgment as to the race-discrimination and wrongful-discharge claims. We find no error, however, in the trial court's entry of summary judgment against Grooms on his disability-discrimination claim. Accordingly, the trial court's judgment will be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

I. Factual and Procedural Background¹

{¶ 4} Shortly after being hired in 1993, Grooms began working as a crew leader for SCOPE, an organization that provides home-improvement services to low-income persons and receives federal and state funding. Grooms's duties as a crew leader included supervising other employees on a job site and ensuring that all work was performed properly.

{¶ 5} Following a reorganization of SCOPE's operations in 2000, Grooms, who is white, came under the supervision of Leonard Florence, who is black. Grooms began experiencing problems after Florence became his supervisor. Grooms believes that Florence sometimes criticized him unfairly. For example, Florence once criticized him for returning a work truck a few minutes early. Florence also criticized him for leaving work-related parties or cookouts to check on jobs. In addition, Florence took seven or eight months to get Grooms a new truck. Although Grooms believes that Florence's actions were motivated by racial or disability discrimination, the primary issues in this case are Grooms's non-selection for an inspector's position and his later termination.

{¶ 6} With regard to the inspector's position, Grooms heard that it was open and expressed his interest to Florence and a higher-level supervisor named Dave Eldridge. Eldridge told Grooms that the position was not going to be filled. Two weeks later, however, the position was given to Brian Davis, a black employee. Davis received the position despite his lack of inspector certification, which Grooms possessed. Grooms also had more seniority than Davis. Grooms believes that his non-selection is attributable to race discrimination in part because Eldridge, who along with Florence was responsible for filling the position, had told him that Eldridge's supervisor, Joyce Price, "preferred to promote blacks because they had been done wrong for so many years."

{¶ 7} After his non-selection for the inspector's position, Grooms continued working as a crew leader. He had occasional difficulty performing his job, however, because of various health problems. Following a 1997 heart attack, he had undergone bypass surgery and missed several months of work. As a result of his heart condition, Grooms experienced shortness of breath when he became overheated and sometimes had to stop to cool off. At times, he also noticed blood-pressure problems.

{¶ 8} In November 2000, Grooms was instructed to meet with Florence and Eldridge upon returning from a work site in Greenville, Ohio. During the meeting, Florence informed Grooms that he was "sick" and directed him to see a doctor and to take off two weeks from work. Grooms promptly visited a doctor, who assured him that he could perform his job "in a normal manner." He remained off work for two weeks, however, as he had been instructed by Florence. When he returned, he told Florence about his doctor's belief that he was capable of working. Because Grooms's doctor had not written him an excuse for being sick, Florence charged the two-week absence to Grooms's vacation time. In addition to instructing Grooms to take the time off work, Florence sometimes criticized his eating habits, his smoking, and his need to take occasional rest breaks. However, Florence never denied Grooms any necessary breaks.

{¶ 9} At times, Grooms and Florence clashed over compliance with state regulatory Home Weatherization Assistance Program standards that governed SCOPE's work. Grooms occasionally found problems that needed to be corrected. Florence tended to "cut corners" in order to save time and instructed Grooms not to fix the problems. Florence's instructions were contrary to Grooms's training at SCOPE, and the issue became a source of contention between the two men.

{¶ 10} On March 8, 2001, Grooms was working at a home in Middletown, Ohio, with other SCOPE employees. While there, he overheard a field supervisor named Doug arguing with a female resident of the home. The woman told Doug "to get the F out of her house and not to come back." When Florence arrived a short time later, the woman began yelling at him and ordered him to leave as well. In response, Florence went upstairs and told Grooms and an employee named Arty that "all the woman needed was a good F'ing and she would be all right." Florence then left the residence. After his departure, the angry woman asked for the office phone number to make a complaint. Grooms gave her the main phone number for SCOPE's Dayton office.

{¶ 11} Later that day, Grooms was directed to Eldridge's office and fired. Eldridge cited Grooms's act of giving the woman SCOPE's office phone number as the reason for his termination. Eldridge characterized the offense as divulging business information in violation of company policy. Eldridge fired Grooms for giving out the office number despite the fact that it is given out freely and is listed on billboards and in the phone book.

{¶ 12} On January 17, 2003, Grooms filed a three-count complaint alleging race and disability discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.02 and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. SCOPE moved for summary judgment on July 17, 2003. The trial court sustained SCOPE's motion in a September 29, 2003 decision, order, and entry. This timely appeal followed.

II. Summary Judgment Standard

{¶ 13} An appellate court's review of a summary judgment decision is de novo. Nilavar v. Osborn (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d 1, 10, 711 N.E.2d 726. Under Civ.R. 56, summary judgment is proper only when (1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made. Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 66, 375 N.E.2d 46. When evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court must construe the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and the moving party has the burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. Id. This burden can be met only by identifying specific facts in the record, including "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence in the pending case, and written stipulations of fact, if any," which indicate the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. The moving party successfully discharges its burden by establishing that the nonmoving party's case lacks the necessary evidence to support its claims. Id. at 289-290, 662 N.E.2d 264. Once this burden has been met, the nonmoving party then has a reciprocal burden as outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which provides that the "adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the party's pleadings" but "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." If the nonmoving party does not respond or identify specific facts to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact, summary judgment is proper. Id.

III. Analysis

A. Race Discrimination

{¶ 14} In his first assignment of error, Grooms contends that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment against him on his race-discrimination claim under R.C. 4112.02. In support of its decision, the trial court found that Grooms could not establish a prima facie case under the familiar burden-shifting approach set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 411 U.S. 792, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668. On appeal, Grooms argues that the trial court erred in reaching this conclusion and that the evidence reveals genuine issues of material fact for trial.

{¶ 15} We begin our analysis by noting that the precise nature of Grooms's race-discrimination claim is unclear. One type of claim under R.C. 4112.02 requires proof that severe and pervasive harassment on the basis of race altered the conditions of employment by creating a "hostile work environment." Tarver v. Calex Corp. (1998), 125 Ohio App.3d 468, 708 N.E.2d 1041. Another type of claim under the statute requires proof that an employee suffered a specific "adverse employment action" on the basis of race. Shepard v. Griffin Serv., Inc., Montgomery App. No. 19032, 2002-Ohio-2283, 2002 WL 940110.

{¶ 16} In the present case,...