Sandra Harris v. The Children's Home of Cincinnati

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio considers the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in an employment dispute involving alleged workplace assaults, resignation or termination, and claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family and Medical Leave Act, and Ohio public policy. The court addresses whether disputed facts concerning the plaintiff’s resignation and the defendant’s response to her reports of assault preclude summary judgment.

Holdings

1. Summary judgment was denied because the evidence created a genuine dispute over whether Harris voluntarily resigned or whether TCH engineered her resignation in response to her reporting and pursuing charges concerning student assaults.
2. Summary judgment was denied on Harris's FMLA interference claim because the disputed circumstances of her alleged resignation prevented the court from determining as a matter of law that she was no longer an employee when she requested leave.
3. Summary judgment was denied on the ADA retaliation claim because whether Harris voluntarily resigned was a genuine dispute of material fact relevant to whether she suffered an adverse employment action.
4. Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Harris's ADA discrimination claim because Harris did not present significant probative evidence that her head injuries substantially limited a major life activity.
5. Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Harris's failure-to-accommodate claim because she failed to establish the threshold requirement that she was disabled under the ADA.
6. The court would consider Harris's declaration because TCH did not identify a specific contradiction between the declaration and Harris's deposition testimony.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on Harris's Ohio public-policy wrongful-termination claim based on her reporting assaults and seeking law-enforcement involvement.
2. Whether a genuine dispute of material fact existed as to whether Harris voluntarily resigned or was effectively terminated, defeating summary judgment on her FMLA interference and ADA retaliation claims.
3. Whether Harris presented sufficient evidence that her head injuries substantially limited a major life activity and therefore constituted a disability under the ADA.
4. Whether Harris's ADA discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims survived summary judgment.
5. Whether Harris's declaration was barred by the sham-affidavit rule because it allegedly contradicted her deposition testimony.

Disposition

other