Howard v. State Farm Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 20 December 1978 |
Citation | 401 N.E.2d 462,61 Ohio App.2d 198 |
Parties | , 18 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1362, 18 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 8823, 15 O.O.3d 317 HOWARD, Appellant, v. STATE FARM INS. CO., Appellee. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an employee files a claim with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, alleging certain discriminatory acts of an employer, and the Commission disposes of the matter pursuant to a "conciliation agreement and consent order" not approved by the employee, such employee has no standing to file a separate action in a Court of Common Pleas which is based upon the complaint before and the order of the Commission.
John C. Berryhill, Hebron, for appellant.
J. Gilbert Reese and Christopher R. Meyer, Newark, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment entry of the Common Pleas Court of Licking County which reads:
In the complaint filed in the instant action, independent of proceedings before the Commission, plaintiff Martha Carol Howard, the appellant herein, has set forth three causes of action:
1. claiming entitlement to monetary damages for mental suffering, harm to reputation, and impairment of future employment potential because of wrongful termination of her employment for reason of race and color in that she was allegedly discharged for excessive absenteeism when a black female, who, allegedly was similarly situated and had a greater record of absenteeism was not also discharged;
2. claiming entitlement to monetary damages for mental suffering, harm to reputation, and impairment of her future earning potential as a result of a violation of her rights as set forth in R.C. 4112.02; and
3. alleging the previous filing of a petition with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission with the following allegations: that she was unlawfully discriminated against in employment by State Farm Insurance Company; that the Civil Rights Commission determined that there was probable cause to believe that unlawful practices by defendant "have been or are being engaged in"; that the conciliation agreement and consent order were unreasonably sought and, upon the refusal of plaintiff to consent thereto, she was told no hearing would be held.
The court was asked to rule that the settlement offer agreed to by the Commission and employer but rejected by the employee was arbitrary, capricious, without support and in fact contrary to law and plaintiff prayed for a judgment against defendant in the amount of $20,000 compensatory damages, $30,000 punitive damages and an order that plaintiff's employment file reflect that she was unlawfully discharged.
R.C. 4112.02, in pertinent part, provides:
R.C. 4112.03 creates the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. R.C. 4112.04 empowers the Civil Rights Commission to hold hearings and affords the Commission all necessary procedural power to protect the rights of the parties with respect to such a hearing.
With respect to conciliation, R.C. 4112.05, in pertinent part, provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bakken v. North American Coal Corp.
...discrimination. See, e.g., Zywicki v. Moxness Products, 31 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1348 (E.D.Wis.1983); Howard v. State Farm Ins. Co., 61 Ohio App.2d 198, 401 N.E.2d 462 (1978) (remedies and procedures of race discrimination statute held to be exclusive); Teale v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 66......
-
South v. Toledo Edison Co.
...had no statutory right to the same. Nor was any such relief available at common law. Cf. Howard v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 198, 203, 15 O.O.3d 317, 320, 401 N.E.2d 462, 466. Cf., also, Brunecz v. Houdaille Industries, Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 106, 107, 13 OBR 123, 125,......
-
Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc.
...cite Peterson v. Scott Constr. Co. (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 203, 5 OBR 466, 451 N.E.2d 1236, and Howard v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 198, 15 O.O.3d 317, 401 N.E.2d 462. Neither of these cases dealt with the assertion of common-law tort claims against an employer. We agree with......
-
Hoops v. United Telephone Co. of Ohio
...had no statutory right to the same. Nor was any such relief available at common law. Cf. Howard v. State Farm Ins. Co. (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 198, 203, 15 O.O.3d 317, 320, 401 N.E.2d 462, 466. Cf., also, Brunecz v. Houdaille Industries, Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 106, 107, 13 OBR 123, 125,......