IN THE SUPREME COURT OF OI3IO Michael Dwoming, ) On Appeal From the Cuyahoga County ) Court of Appeals, Plaintiff-Appellee, ) Eighth Appellate District ) vs. - ) Appellate Court Case No. 87757 ) City of Euclid, et al., Supreme Court Case No. 2007-0307 Defendants-Appellants. ) PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE iVIICHAEL DWORNING'S MERTT BRIEF Christopher P. Thorman (0056013)(Counsel of Record) Richard A. Millisor (0062883) Peter Hardin-Levine (0014288) William F. Blackie (0017699) Jon L. Lindberg (0076591) MILLISOR & NOBIL CO., L.P.A. THORMAN & HARDIN-LEVINE CO. L.P.A. 9150 South Hills Blvd., Suite 300 The Bradley Building Cleveland, Ohio 44147-3599 1220 West 6°i Street, Suite 207 (440) 838-8800 - Phone Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (440) 839-8805 - Fax (216) 621-9767 - Phone [email protected] (216) 621-3422-Fax [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Chris Frey (0038964) Counsel for Plaintiff Appellee Euclid City Hall Michael Dworning 585 East 222°d Street Euclid, Ohio 44123-2099 (216) 289-2746 - Phone (216) 289-2766 - Fax cfrev (9)ci.euclid.oh.u s Counsel for Defendant-Appellant, City of Euclid, James Slivers & Thomas Cosgriff Barbara Kaye Besser (0017624) ELFVIN & BESSER L.P.A. 4070 Mayfield Road Cleveland, Ohio 44121-3031 CLER6( (216) 382-2500-- Phone OF C®URT (216) 381-0250 - Fax SUPREME COURT OF ®H!0 [email protected] Counsel fo-r Defendants-Appellants, JumesSlivrrs-and -TfwmasCosgriff------ TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa2e INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENTIOF FACTS .................................................................................:........................ 2 Dworning was a long-term successful employee with the city of Euclid ................................... 2 Dworning sought treatment for alcoholism and was placed on a leave of absence .................... 2 Appellants gathered evidence of Dworning's disability to support an illegal and discriniinatory termination ...............................................................................................................:.................. 3 Euclid terminated Dworning after he refused to resign .............................................................. 5 Euclid ignored its Commission rules and treated Dworning as a non-classified employee ....... 7 Procedural 1-Iistory .. .................................................................................................................... 9 LA W AND ARGUMENT ...............................................................................................:........... 10 I. R.C. 4112 creates an unfettered right for victims of disability discrimination to bring private causes of action ............................................................................................................. 10 A. The General Assembly amended R.C. 4112 to create an independent civil action for employment discrimination .................................................................................................. 10 B. R.C. 4112.99 permits disability discrimination victinvs to bring lawsuits .................... 11 II. The Eighth District correctly refused to limit or condition the rights of discrimination victims to seek judicial redress .................:............................................................................... 12 A. Courts must liberally construe R.C. 4112 to secure its remedial purposes ................... 13 B. The General Assembly did not condition the rights of disability discrimination victims upon theexhaustion of administrative remedies ................................................................... 15 C. The Eighth Appellate District correctly refused to apply the court-made doctrine of judicial exhaustion to R.C. 4112 claims .......:....................................................................... 18 D. The Eighth District correctly determined that the policies and purposes of R.C. 4112 would be undermined by applying the administrative exhaustion doctrine to R.C.. 4112 claims .................................................................................................................................... 29 1. The policies and purposes of R.C. 4112 will be undermined by requirina employeeS to file discrimination claiins with civil service commissions .......................... .......:. 29 2. R.C. 4112 preempts conflicting municipal ordinances ................................................ 32 3. While public employees enjoy broader constitutionally guaranteed rights than private employees,lLC. 4112 grants them the identical right to bring a discrimination lawsuit as those provided to private employees .................................................................... 36 III. Dworning did not have any administrative remedies to eikhaust when it is not disputed that the Euclid Civil Service Commission was never notified of his termination and had no authority to consider or redress his R.C. 4112 discrimination claims, common law tort claims against Euclid, and separate claims against individuals ........................................................... 37 B. The Euclid Civil Service Commission lacks the authority to consider Dworning's R.C. 4112.99 claims or to award damages for those claims ......................................................... 40 C. The Euclid Civil Service Conunission lacks the authority to determine whether Appellants are liable for defamation, invasion of privacy, or civil conspiracy .................... 42 D. The Euclid Civil Service Commission lacks the authority to assess liability or damages against any of the individual defendants ............................................................................... 43 E. Appellants cannot assert that Dwoming failed to exhaust administrative remedies when. they failed to notify him of those rights ................................................................................ 44 W. The language of the Euclid City Charter is permissive and does not require exhaustion 45 V. The individual defendants are not proper parties to this appeal ....................................... 47 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ...............................:................................................................. 49 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................... Apnendix Page Notice of Appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court (February 14, 2005........... Appellee Appx. I Journal Entry of the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals (January 18, 2006) .................................................................................. Appellee Appx. 10 Journal Entry of the Ohio Supreme Court (May 2, 2007) ...................... Appellee Appx. I 1 Joumal Entry of the Ohio Supreme Court (May 2, 2007) ...................... Appellee Appx. 12 42 U.S.C. § 2000e ...............................................: ......... ............ Appellee Appx. 13 Ohio Rev. Code § 4112.01 ...................................................................... Appellee Appx. 35 Ohio Constitution, Article XVIIl. § 7 .................................................... Appellee Appx. 38 Unreported Cases (in alphabetical order) ............................................... Appellee Appx. 39 Shepard's Summary for Sanders v. Sunimit County Veterans' Serv. Conun'n, 2002 Ohio 2653, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 2504.......... Appellee Appx. 126 Benson A. Wolman, Separation Anxiety: Free Exercise Versus Equal Protection, 47 Ohio St. L.J. 453, 463 (1986 ............................... Appellee Appx. 127 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES State Cases Andres v. Perrysburg, 47 Ohio App. 3d 51, i56-57, 546 N.E.2d 1377, 1383-84 .......................... 44 Basic Distribution Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Taxation (2002); 94 Ohio St. 3d 287 ............. 19, 21, 23 Carrico v. Drake Const., 2006 Ohio 3138, 2006 Ohio App. LEXIS 3006 ................................... 40 Christe v. GMS Mgt. Co. (2000), 88 Ohio St. 3d 376, 726 N.E.2d 497 ....................................... 13 Cincinnati v. Dixon (1s` Dist. 1992), 78 Ohio App. 3d 164, 169-70 ....................................... 40,41 Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Nethersole (1911), 84 Ohio St. 118 ........................................ 43 Cupps v. Toledo (1959), 170 Ohio St. 144, 163 N.E.2d 384 ........................................................ 33 Department of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917 (1992), 65 Ohio St. 3d 532, 534-35, 605 N.E.2d 368, 370 ................................................................................................................. 46 Dolan v. Dolan, 2002 Ohio 2440, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 2523 ................................................. 40 Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist. (1971), 27 Ohio St. 2d 102, 271 N.E.2d 834 ..................... 46 East Cleveland Firefighters, Local 500 v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 6023 (Appellee Appx. 56) ....................................................:............................................................. 38 Elek v. Huntington National Bank, (1991), 60 Ohio St. 3d 135, 573 N.E.2d 1056... 12, 20, 23, 24, 26,29,31,34 Filips v. Case Western Reserve University, 8`h Dist. No. 79741, 2002-Ohio-4428, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 4576 (Appellee Appx. 85) ............................................................................