Silvers’ attorney, Gregory Turner, said his client was disappointed and that he felt the evidence was strong enough to at least go to trial.
“I believe most people in the United States think that supervisors and coworkers must be very careful to avoid claims of sexual harassment, but when one looks at the conduct allowed in this case, both the employer and the courts seem to tolerate what we believe what most people would consider outrageous,” he said.
RELATED: Ex-Clay Twp. officer alleges sexual harassment
Dawn Frick, an attorney representing Clay Twp., said she believes all three courts made the proper conclusion.
“It is important to point out that this decision only discusses Ms. Silvers’ version of the facts without determining whether those facts are actually what occurred at Clay Township,” Frick said.
Silvers’ allegations — some disputed by Clay Twp. attorneys — included:
• A March 2013 incident in which she told her superiors she was urinating blood and was allegedly asked by Scott, “Are you sure it’s not your monthly?” and repeating, “My name is Tina and my (vagina) hurts.”
• A summer 2013 incident in which Scott questioned Silvers’ personal hygiene and if that was the “funk” he smelled.
RELATED: Documents: Arrested cop severely bruised child’s face with slap
• That Scott inquired about Silvers’ weight loss after Silvers’ sister had died of cancer by asking, “What’s the matter, do you have cancer or something?”
• Other incidents during which Silvers claims she was sworn at or mistreated while performing her job.
Silvers didn’t report the behavior to township trustees and claims she was denied the opportunity to do so. Silvers was terminated from her position on Sept. 18, 2013.
MORE: Read other stories from Mark Gokavi
Rose wrote that “while exceedingly boorish,” comments about Silvers’ weight loss were not linked to gender and neither were “crass metaphors” about hygiene.
The ruling quotes the Ohio Supreme Court, which has explained: “The rough edges of our society are still in need of a good deal of filing down, and in the meantime plaintiffs must necessarily be expected and required to be hardened to a certain amount of rough language, and to occasional acts that are definitely inconsiderate and unkind. There is no occasion for the law to intervene in every case where someone’s feelings are hurt.”
SOCIAL MEDIA: Follow Mark Gokavi on Twitter or Facebook
DOWNLOAD OUR FREE MOBILE APPS