Thursday, December 13, 2007
COLUMBUS — A divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that employers may file lawsuits against workers who file workplace discrimination complaints — a decision that reverses rulings by the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and an appeals court.
The court gave a nod to protecting workers' rights to seek redress for discrimination without fear of retaliation as a "laudable goal entitled to considerable weight."
Extras
But the court held that the Civil Rights Commission and appeals court erred in ruling an employer's lawsuit constituted illegal retaliation without considering the merits of the suit. In 1998, Cleveland resident Tammy Greer-Burger filed a sexual harassment suit against Laszlo Temesi, her former employer. The jury ruled in favor of Temesi, who turned around and filed suit against Greer-Burger to recover his costs defending the sexual harassment suit and for punitive damages for "malicious prosecution."
Greer-Burger filed a complaint with the Civil Rights Commission, saying Temesi's lawsuit was illegal retaliation for her sexual harassment case. The commission ruled in her favor and ordered Temesi to pay Greer-Burger $16,000 to cover her legal bills.
Temesi fought the order through the courts and lost at the trial and appeals court level, but won with a 4-3 decision in the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court sent it back to the Civil Rights Commission to give Temesi a chance to show his suit isn't baseless.
Justice Judith Lanzinger, who wrote the dissenting opinion, said it is retaliatory when employers seek punitive damages from employees who filed complaints.
Lanzinger wrote: "Routinely including punitive damages in suits against employees who lose their cases will have a freezing, rather than chilling, effect on others who wish to exercise their rights under the anti-discrimination statutes."
Comments
By Sherman Lain
December 15, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
From a sense of what is ‘just’ - I think a superior should have the right to have courts decide on a lawsuit filed for malicious prosecution/fraud, etc. If the defendant is found not guilty of discrimination or harassment, why shouldn’t they? My opinion is based on observations/experience of going through the OCRC/EEOC channels in a matter I considered to be racially discriminatory. I’ve concluded that the Commission is very self-serving; can’t be on the payroll without cases, right?
By Consultant
December 14, 2007 3:30 PM | Link to this
I see this ruling as causing multiple problems. As an HR Consultant I have witnessed both sides of the fence. However, more often than not, when a claim is frivilous or false, the investigation will typically uncover such intent. The ability to file suit against a frivilous or false claim should be limited to cases in which Fraud or conspiracy to commit fraud can be proven.
By Robert
December 14, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
I am an HR Director and this ruling is a mistake. Some employers do discriminate, retaliate and sexually harass. This decison will have a chilling effect on employees who have legitimate issues but cannot afford legal respresentation. The advantage will be in favor of the employers who can afford legal reprsentation.
By Jim
December 13, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this
Yes employers should be able to sue to recover their legal costs and they should also be allowed to sue for a TOKEN sum as “punitive damages”.
But more importantly, white males should be able to sue the employer for discrimmination that happens due to programs like (so-called) Equal Opportunity, Affirmative Action, Diversity, Quotas, and “Bi-Lingual Preferred” - and be taken seriously by the courts.
By louisville
December 13, 2007 12:18 PM | Link to this
I understand what “manager” is saying if he/she is referring to lazy people. I used to make a point to hire all LEGAL foreigners over ANY homegrown American simply because they had better work ethics and did not spend 3/4 of their shifts fussing about their violated rights and gossiping. Americans are too complacent in knowing they can sue if they get fired. The only Americans that don’t use this card as a group are the heterosexual white males. For all others it is “discrimination.”
By Allison
December 13, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this
The OCR is a joke, and employers SHOULD be allowed to countersue for malicious and warrantless lawsuits. I managed a business where I fired a handful of employees. Each and every one of the black employees filed racial discrimination suits with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission . Each time, the Commission visited me and said “hire this person back, pay them all of their missed back pay, and we’ll forget about it”. They never asked for our side. We declined their generous offer each time.
By Dusty
December 13, 2007 11:55 AM | Link to this
I feel this ruling has very good merit to it, because serving in the armed forces for 12 years, and being in prison for 8 years, I have seen a lot of baseless sex/race based greviences filed without merit.
I think if a person is falsely accused, they should have the ability to go after their accuser, however, I can see abuse in this, just as there are abuses in the discrimination process.
By Haryy
December 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
I think if people/companies could counter sue in any baseless law suites it would put a certain “Tiger” out of business!
By Kevin
December 13, 2007 11:25 AM | Link to this
Initially, I thought this was a good ruling, for there are clearly some frivolous claims filed. But the alarming comments made by Supervisor strongly suggest I am wrong. If Supervisor (and others like him) harbor the belief that women and people of color are merely “tokens” and “worthless individuals,” then every protection of Title VII and its progeny must remain undiluted in any way. How easy is it for Supervisor to hide by the cloak of anonymity while writing someone’s evaluation?
By supervisor
December 13, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
I think this is a good ruling. Too many of our token employees rely on the threat of sexual harassment or racial discrimination lawsuits to keep an employer from having any means of dealing with them. Typically those employees are ones that were forced on the company by the EEOC and other groups that champion these worthless individuals and they are well schooled in the tactics of using threats to ensure their continued employment.
By Mom
December 13, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this
It is a tough call. Some employers can use it to clear their name from a baseless allegation. But others can use it to retaliate. Ther is a fine line that people will have to look at. If the company is found guilty there should be a law against them being able to just sue the person back. If they are found innocent then they should have the right to sue for legal costs and the faulse allegations. My fear though is that people won’t report when it really does happen now.
By Pearl
December 13, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this
I think it should be a 2 way street. If I fire an employee because they can’t do the job well - and a week later they are filing a sexual harassment suit against me (most likely just because they got fired and are mad) - I should have the chance at going after them as well if I feel it was unwarranted.
By Cait
December 13, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this
That’s a tough call. I worked for a small company that fired a useless worker who then sued for sexual harrassment. As a woman who worked closely with her & the two co-workers accused, I was deposed and showed many facts that proved the case was baseless. However, the parent company chose to settle out of court for thousands of $$ because it was cheaper than paying attorneys several more months to fight it. Had this ruling existed, we could have fought it out and cleared the company name.