Indirect evidence helps OH employee keep bias case alive

A recent U.S. district court decision provides a useful reminder to employers that although Ohio courts have narrowly defined direct evidence of discrimination, indirect evidence provides an ample basis for employees to avoid summary judgment (dismissal without a trial) and get their case to a jury.

Case summary

Frank Stircula alleged his employer, Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, violated Ohio law by discriminating against him because of his age and in retaliation for having contacted the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) when the company denied him a promotion in favor of a younger applicant and later terminated him for attempting to stop a shoplifter by following him into a parking lot.

As a starting point, U.S. District Judge Christopher Boyko made clear that in state law discrimination cases under Ohio Revised Code (O.R.C.) Chapter 4112, including those alleging age discrimination, the elements and burden of proof parallel federal law. Consequently, age discrimination claims can be proven with direct evidence of discrimination or indirectly through a burden shifting analysis.

The court explained that “direct evidence is rare” and includes “only the most blatant remarks, whose intent could be nothing other than to discriminate on the basis of age.” Indeed, to rise to the level of direct evidence, such comments “must be: (1) made by a decision-maker or by an agent acting within the scope of his or her employment; (2) related to the decision-making (termination) process; (3) more than merely ‘vague, ambiguous, or isolated’; and (4) made proximate in time to the act of termination.”