Anderson v. Bright Horizons Children's Ctrs., L.L.C.

Summary

The Ohio Tenth District Court of Appeals reviewed summary judgment in a disability-discrimination action brought by Haley Anderson against Bright Horizons Children's Centers, LLC and Carrie Delaney. The court held that Anderson had not shown an actual disability under Ohio's statutory definition because her congenital heart defect was not shown to substantially limit a listed major life activity, but found factual disputes regarding whether the defendants regarded her as impaired and whether she voluntarily resigned or was terminated. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the case.

Holdings

1. Anderson did not establish that her congenital heart defect substantially limited a major life activity under Ohio's statutory definition of disability because R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) does not include the operation of major bodily functions as a separate category of major life activities. Summary judgment was therefore proper on the actual-disability claim.
2. Summary judgment was improper on Anderson's regarded-as disability-discrimination claim because evidence created genuine issues of material fact regarding whether defendants perceived her as having a physical impairment, whether Bright Horizons terminated her rather than accepting a voluntary resignation, and whether the perceived impairment contributed to the employment action.
3. Summary judgment was proper on Anderson's failure-to-accommodate claim because neither Anderson nor her mother made a sufficiently direct and specific request for a reasonable accommodation.
4. The trial court properly granted summary judgment on Anderson's claim for failure to engage in the interactive process because the Tenth District does not recognize a separate claim under R.C. 4112.02 for failure to engage in that process, and in any event no duty arose because Anderson did not request a reasonable accommodation.
5. Because Anderson's regarded-as disability-discrimination claim survived summary judgment, her derivative claim that Delaney aided and abetted discrimination under R.C. 4112.02(J) also survived summary judgment.
6. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by sanctioning Anderson for failing to properly respond to the request for production of an audio recording and by excluding the disputed deposition testimony.
7. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting the requested electronic-discovery search or denying a forensic inspection of defendants' computers.

Questions Presented

1. Whether genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on Anderson's actual-disability and regarded-as-disability discrimination claims under R.C. 4112.02(A).
2. Whether Anderson's congenital heart defect substantially limited a major life activity under Ohio's statutory definition of disability.
3. Whether the evidence created a factual dispute regarding whether defendants regarded Anderson as having a physical impairment and took an adverse employment action because of that perceived impairment.
4. Whether Anderson established a failure-to-accommodate claim by requesting that defendants not hold her heart defect against her.
5. Whether Ohio law recognizes an independent claim for failure to engage in the interactive process.
6. Whether Delaney's aiding-and-abetting claim under R.C. 4112.02(J) survived because the underlying regarded-as discrimination claim survived.
7. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by sanctioning Anderson for failing to properly respond to a discovery request for an audio recording.
8. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting electronic discovery and denying a requested forensic inspection of defendants' computers.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded