Civil Rights Reporter 

Retaliation remains a serious problem in cases before the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. Sometimes, employers lash out against employees simply because they complain about discrimination. It is not unusual for these same employers to produce reasons to get rid of their complaining employee, even though he or she performed well prior to lodging the discrimination complaint. This past quarter, the Commission saw two such retaliation cases, both of which resulted in cease-and-desist orders.
 
Paulette Neer v. Feet First (June 25, 2015), involved a receptionist (Paulette Neer) at a podiatrist’s office called Feet First in Dayton. After working at the office for about a year and a half, Ms. Neer announced to her co-workers that she was pregnant. Dr. Daniel Keane, who ran the business, told Ms. Neer that her job would not be held open for her after she returned from pregnancy leave. Believing she was being fired for being pregnant, Ms. Neer contacted an attorney. Later, a supervisor met with Ms. Neer and inquired why she was being so quiet. Ms. Neer explained that she was upset because she understood she would be losing her job after she gave birth to her baby. During the meeting Ms. Neer also stated she had contacted an attorney who would be sending a letter to Dr. Keane. After the meeting, the supervisor met with Dr. Keane and told him that Ms. Neer complained about discrimination. The next day, Dr. Keane received a letter from Ms. Neer’s attorney that explained her rights as a pregnant employee. Dr. Keane immediately wrote back to Ms. Neer’s attorney. He informed the attorney that Ms. Neer was fired and she was banned from ever returning to the office.
 
Melanie A. Lane v. Little York Tavern (May 14, 2015), involved a server at the Little York Tavern, a restaurant and bar in Vandalia. Lane, the server, complained to the owner of the business (Tom Hentrick) that his general manager (Mark Rothwell) sexually assaulted her. When Mr. Hentrick proposed to move Ms. Lane to day shifts to limit her contact with Mr. Rothwell, Ms. Lane became concerned. She did not have daytime childcare. She also feared that she would make less money because the daytime business was slower.

While Mr. Hentrick ended up speaking to Mr. Rothwell about the allegations, Ms. Lane remained concerned whether he really took her complaint seriously. Consequently, she filed a police report and a charge of sexual harassment with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. After she filed her complaints, Ms. Lane started receiving notices for disciplinary infractions. She was eventually terminated for allegedly falsifying a customer’s pizza ticket order, despite the fact that the ticket was corrected and properly paid. On the night of her termination, Mr. Hentrick threatened to have Ms. Lane arrested unless she signed a statement admitting her wrongdoing.
 
In both cases, the employees who were fired were not issued any discipline before they complained about discrimination. After they complained, though, they were both accused of several minor infractions, and eventually accused of a more serious infraction. In Ms. Neer’s case, she was accused of being disruptive in the office. In Ms. Lane’s case, she was accused of falsifying a customer’s bill.
 
The Administrative Law Judge noted the lack of evidence supporting the infractions. Moreover, in both cases, the employers took extreme actions when carrying out the terminations. In Ms. Neer’s case, Dr. Keane threatened to file a restraining order if she returned to the office. In Ms. Lane’s case, Mr. Hentrick called the police and threatened to have her arrested. These harsh reactions provided further support for retaliation.
 
Unlike retaliation cases, religion and disability cases typically do not involve overt acts of discrimination. Instead, they usually deal with complicated reasonable accommodation issues.  Occasionally, though, the Commission is confronted with blatant acts of discrimination simply based on the employee’s membership in these protected classes. The Commission recently issued two such decisions.
 
In the religion case, Lee W. Yeager v. First Energy Generation Corporation (Jan. 29, 2015), the Commission determined that First Energy Generation Corporation terminated Yeager because of his religion. The case stems from an issue involving First Energy’s insistence that all employees accept payment by direct deposit.

During his orientation, one of First Energy’s human resources representatives provided Mr. Yeager with a direct deposit authorization form. Mr. Yeager informed the representative that he was a Christian Fundamentalist and that his religious beliefs did not allow him to utilize checking accounts. The HR representative relayed Mr. Yeager’s concerns to the corporate HR manager. The corporate HR manager responded that Mr. Yeager should be willing to work with its system. Subsequently, the HR representative told Mr. Yeager that he was terminated and escorted him off the property.
 
In the disability discrimination case, Eric Sheets v. Finney Automotive Company, Inc. (Apr. 23, 2015), the Commission determined that Finney Automotive Company (Finney), a collision repair shop, terminated Sheets because it perceived (or regarded) him to be disabled. Mr. Sheets first began working for Finney as a part-time independent contractor, and was primarily responsible for troubleshooting computer issues. He eventually became Finney’s full-time office manager, making him eligible to receive health insurance coverage. In 2006, one of Finney’s employees suffered a life-threatening health problem that required several surgeries and multiple hospitalizations. This increased the health insurance premiums by 30 percent. 
 
In 2010, Mr. Sheets had a heart attack and was hospitalized. Without notifying Mr. Sheets, Finney terminated his health insurance coverage. When Mr. Sheets called to inquire about the status of his job, Finney indicated it was “going in another direction” and terminated him. The Commission determined that Finney fired Mr. Sheets because it regarded him as being disabled.
 
The temporal proximity between learning of the employee’s protected class and terminating him was a significant fact in both the Sheets and the Yeager cases. Mr. Sheets’ employer terminated him one month after it found out that he had a heart attack. Mr. Yeager’s employer terminated him on the same day it learned of his religious belief. In both cases, the timing of the termination coupled with evidence of pretext played a significant role in the determination that these employers were making unlawful discriminatory decisions.
 
Whether it is a small or large employer, retaliation and discrimination still occur throughout Ohio. Sometimes employers take drastic actions when carrying out their discriminatory actions. When that happens, finding the discriminatory motive is less difficult.