Summary
The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment for Union Home Mortgage Corporation in an age-discrimination action brought by former employee Greg Selzer. The court held that evidence concerning Selzer’s proximity to retirement, including retirement-related comments by decision makers and an email identifying his retirement as a termination factor, created a genuine issue of material fact under the direct-evidence method of proof.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by failing to evaluate Selzer's evidence under the direct method of proving age discrimination.
- Whether Selzer established a prima facie case of age discrimination through indirect evidence.
- Whether the trial court erred by failing to consider Selzer's evidence that the employer's stated reasons were pretextual.
Holdings
- Summary judgment was improper because Selzer presented evidence from which a jury could find that age discrimination was at least a motivating factor in his termination, creating a genuine issue of material fact.
- The issue was moot because Selzer's direct evidence of age discrimination was sufficient to withstand summary judgment and establish a prima facie case.
- The pretext issue was moot because the direct-evidence method was sufficient to defeat summary judgment.
Key quotations
“A party is entitled to summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C) if “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”” (¶ 14)
“The direct evidence method, contrary to its name, can utilize either direct or circumstantial evidence ‘to show that an employer more likely than not was motivated by discriminatory intent.’” (¶ 19)
“To successfully utilize the direct-evidence method, Selzer must have presented evidence that, if believed by a jury, would prove that UHM acted with discriminatory intent.” (¶ 20)
“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Selzer as we are required to do pursuant to Civ.R. 56, Selzer has created a genuine issue of material fact such that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether Selzer suffered age discrimination.” (¶ 24)
Factual background
Union Home Mortgage Corporation terminated Greg Selzer in March 2022 under the asserted pretext of a reduction in force. Selzer was 64 years old and alleged that the company hired a less-qualified 31-year-old employee five months before his termination to replace him. Before and around the termination decision, supervisors repeatedly asked Selzer about his retirement plans, and a vice president involved in the decision emailed that Selzer "keeps saying he will retire but hasn’t." A company representative testified that Selzer’s proximity to retirement was a factor considered in placing him on the termination list.
Procedural history
Selzer filed an age-discrimination complaint against Union Home Mortgage Corporation in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. The employer moved for summary judgment, which the trial court granted, concluding that Selzer could not establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that evidence of discriminatory intent created a genuine issue of material fact.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.