Police Chief Loses Qualified Immunity Argument After Having HR Consultant Arrested on Misdemeanor Charges Allegedly to Retaliate or Intimidate Her

Every now and then a case shows up that even I – in my jaded old age – find jaw dropping.  This morning was one of those times.  A local HR Consultant was arrested and incarcerated for 36 hours in connection with an internal investigation in northeast Ohio.  Needless to say, the Police Chief (who was a subject of that investigation and arranged for her arrest and incarceration) was promptly placed on leave and then fired.  After she subsequently brought suit against him and the Township for, among other things, abuse of process, he claimed qualified immunity because he had probable cause to have her arrested for a misdemeanor charge.  The Court noted that he had confused malicious prosecution (where there was no probable cause) with abuse of process.  “The premise of an abuse of process claim is that a process has been abused, not that it was illegal to invoke the process by proceeding without probable cause.”  Further, there was sufficient evidence that he sought to silence the Consultant to preserve his employment, not merely to see her justly prosecuted for a misdemeanor offense.  Therefore, evidence of his malicious purpose in having her arrested was sufficient to justify denial of qualified immunity.  McDowell v. Pomesky, No. 26-3027 (6^th Cir. Oct. 26, 2026).

According to the Court’s opinion, the Consultant was engaged by the Township to audit its human resources practices and concerns with the Police Chief.  In the course of her audit, she discovered a number of complaints against the Chief.  She also discovered that he was monitoring which employees she spoke with (possibly to intimidate them) and had opened an investigation (in retaliation) against the person who told her about his monitoring.  She provided a draft report to the Township about the issues with the Chief and became concerned that he would retaliate against her when he not-so-subtly -informed her that he knew her home address. She responded with a false bluff that she was aware someone had looked her up on LEADS, and he promptly investigated whether that LEADS report had been generated from the Township department.  Several days later, he convinced a local prosecutor that she had engaged in misdemeanor falsification and obstruction of official business and obtained an arrest warrant from a judge.   Typically, misdemeanor arrests are only made in that County and  misdemeanors are only subject to a summons, not an arrest.  (In fact, no misdemeanor warrants had been issued or arrests occurred outside the County in the Chief’s memory or career).  However, the Chief arranged for the Consultant to be arrested in Franklin County, where she was held for 36 hours.   At no time had the Township ever arranged for someone to be arrested for a misdemeanor more than 4 hours away, like the Consultant.

After the defendants moved for summary judgment, the District Court agreed that the Consultant had sufficient evidence to show that the Chief had engaged in abuse of process – i.e., “whether [the Chief] perverted the process for an ulterior purpose.”  It also found qualified “immunity under Ohio law does not extend to government employees who act “with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.” The Chief appealed only the denial of qualified immunity.

In Ohio, municipal employees enjoy a “presumption of immunity.”  . . .  But that immunity does not extend to employees whose “acts or omissions were with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2744.03(A)(6)(b). [The Consultant] alleges both malice and bath faith. For malice, an employee must act with “the willful and intentional design to do injury or the intention or desire to harm another, usually seriously, through conduct which is unlawful or unjustified.”  . . .  An employee acts in “bad faith” when they have “dishonest purpose,” engage in “conscious wrongdoing,” or breach a “known duty through some ulterior motive or ill will.”  . . .  The question of “[w]hether a government employee acted with the intent necessary to overcome the presumption of immunity is typically a jury question.”  . . .

 Here, [the Chief] argues that he is entitled to statutory immunity because he had a reasonable justification for investigating, charging, and arresting [the Consultant] and because his actions were “authorized” under Ohio law.  . . .  But viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the Consultant], a reasonable jury could conclude that [his] actions nonetheless evinced malice or bad faith.  Consider even just a few parts of the record that raise a material question as to whether [he] acted with an intent to harm [her] or with a dishonest purpose. [The Consultant], for example, presented evidence that [his] decision to seek and enforce an arrest warrant was contrary to the police department’s policy for misdemeanor offenses. Various officers in the department—including [him]—could not identify a single instance in  their entire careers where misdemeanor charges had been handled in a similar manner. A reasonable jury could find that [he] deviated from the department’s arrest policy for the dishonest purpose of hampering or halting [her] investigation into him by incarcerating her. (italics added for emphasis).

[The Chief] contends that he is entitled to immunity because his decision to arrest [the Consultant]  was supported by probable cause; he emphasizes that a prosecutor brought the charges and a judge signed off on the arrest warrant.  . . . . But [he] does not cite authority for the proposition that the presence of probable cause is, by itself, enough to guarantee immunity. Nor could he: The first element of a claim for abuse of process is “that a legal proceeding has been set in motion in proper form and with probable cause.”  . . . The premise of an abuse of process claim is that a process has been abused, not that it was illegal to invoke the process by proceeding without probable cause. The latter sounds in malicious prosecution, a distinct claim that [he] improperly conflates with abuse of process.  . . .  So if probable cause could confer statutory immunity, as [he] asserts, government employees would have immunity against all properly pleaded claims of abuse of process and could pursue malicious and bad faith actions with impunity.

The Court also rejected the Chief’s attempt to rely on an Ohio Supreme Court decision’s footnote (which is always dicta) because that decision concerned the merits of an abuse of process claim, and not the issue of qualified immunity, which is governed by statute.

Next, [the Chief] contends that because his actions were “authorized,” he is entitled to statutory immunity. This argument too is unavailing because it conflates two different legal questions. His argument rests on a footnote in Yaklevich, an Ohio Supreme Court case. Yaklevich explains the second element of an abuse of process claim, which requires that “the proceeding has been perverted to attempt to accomplish an ulterior purpose for which it was not designed.” Id. The footnote states: “Therefore, ‘there is no liability [for abuse of process] where the defendant has done nothing more than carry out the process to its authorized conclusion, even though with bad intentions.’” Id. at 118 n.2 (quoting Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts 898 (W. Page Keeton et al. eds., 5th ed.1984)). [The Chief] reasons that because his conduct falls within that footnote’s safe harbor, he did not act with the malice or bad faith required to overcome immunity under § 2744.03(A)(6)(b).

The problem for [the Chief] is that Yaklevich addresses the merits (i.e., what makes the misuse of process tortious), whereas § 2744.03(A)(6)(b) addresses the official’s culpable state of mind for immunity purposes. Whether [the Chief] “perverted” the criminal process is therefore not necessarily coextensive with whether he acted with malicious purpose or in bad faith in pursuing them. Indeed, as Yaklevich’s footnote itself suggests, a defendant can carry a legal process to its authorized conclusion but still have a dishonest purpose. See e.g., Buehner v. City of Cleveland, 788 F. Supp. 3d 827, 914, 921-22 (N.D. Ohio 2025) (holding that allegations of fabricated evidence rose to the level of bad faith or malice necessary to defeat statutory immunity but failed to establish abuse of process absent an ulterior purpose beyond securing a conviction). And here, a reasonable jury could find that [the Chief] exercised otherwise lawful discretion for the dishonest purpose of protecting his job by discrediting and silencing [the Consultant].

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

DOL Addresses Volunteer Work by Non-Profit Exempt Employees

Last month, the federal Department of Labor issued an Opinion Letter 2026-12 addressing when non-profit employees can volunteer for their employer without additional compensation.  The DOL has long taken the position that employees may not volunteer without expectation of compensation to perform duties that are the same or similar to their regular compensable work.  In addition, if an exempt employee volunteers similar work, the employer must be careful that the employee’s primary duty remains exempt work or those employees would be entitled to additional compensation.   This particular work involved socializing puppies at home to become service animals.  The duties of office workers and veterinarians were dissimilar enough from the tasks of socializing puppies at home and, thus, could be voluntary.  However, the compensable duties of exempt dog trainers were too similar to be volunteer work.  Further analysis would be required to determine whether raising puppies changed the primary duty of their exempt position.  “If the employee remains exempt under the applicable duty and salary tests, the employee’s salary could serve as compensation for any hours spent raising puppies at home, and no additional compensation would be required.”  This is because, “an employee who is exempt from the minimum wage and overtime requirements under section 13(a)(1) may perform additional juvenile canine socialization work without additional compensation if the employee’s primary duty remains the performance of exempt work and the employee continues to satisfy the salary requirements for the exemption.”

The DOL has long applied by analogy FLSA regulations applying to government work to non-profit agencies.

[A]n employment relationship does not exist when a public sector [i.e., government] employee volunteers to perform services to the employing public agency, so long as the individual receives no compensation to perform the volunteer services,3 and such services are not the same type of services for which the individual is employed to perform for the public agency. 29 U.S.C. § 203(e)(4)(A). In addition, the Division’s regulations clarify that individuals are volunteers “only where their services are offered freely and without pressure or coercion, direct or implied, from an employer.” 29 C.F.R. § 553.101(c). . . .

Although the FLSA does not include a similar express provision for private, nonprofit employers, the Division has consistently applied the same requirements to employees of religious, charitable, or nonprofit organizations who volunteer their services to their employing organization for civic, charitable, or humanitarian reasons. . . .

Accordingly, an employee of a nonprofit organization may, freely and without coercion from the employer or its agents, volunteer to perform work that is neither the same nor of similar type as the work that the employee is employed to perform. Put another way, a nonprofit employee cannot be both a paid employee and a non-paid volunteer while performing the same type of work for the same employer  … . .When a nonprofit employee volunteers to do the same type of work that the employee is employed to perform, the Division has long considered that volunteer work an indivisible part of the employment relationship for FLSA purposes, and, as such, it may constitute hours worked.  . . . Additionally, employees cannot agree, or be required to “agree,” to waive their rights to compensation under the FLSA under the guise of volunteering.

If an exempt employee volunteers to perform work that is the same or similar to his or her regular duties, the employer need not necessarily pay extra salary or compensation unless the amount of so-called volunteer work involves non-exempt aspects of the employee’s job and the employee’s primary duties are no longer exempt duties.

An employee’s exemption status can become relevant, however, if the “volunteer” work does not satisfy the conditions for volunteering required by the Act and explained in the Division’s regulations, including, for example, if the volunteer duties are of the same or similar type as those the employee is employed to perform, and thus are part of the employment relationship. In those circumstances, for a non-exempt employee, the employer must pay for all combined hours worked, including any “volunteer” hours, pursuant to the Act.

In analyzing job duties in comparison to the tasks of raising puppies at home, the DOL concluded that exempt veterinarian and office workers could volunteer to raise puppies, but exempt dog trainers could not volunteer without further analysis of how the non-exempt work of raising puppies affected their primary duty test.

Based on a general understanding of the work that veterinarians typically perform, we assume for the purposes of this letter that the veterinarians’ duties involve providing medical care to the canines, such as diagnosing and treating sick or injured dogs, and do not include providing non medical care to, training, or socializing juvenile canines. Likewise, we assume for the purposes of this letter that the directors’ duties involve supervising employees and do not include directly caring for, training, socializing, or otherwise interacting with the juvenile canines. As such, the veterinarians’ and directors’ duties would be sufficiently different from the routine care, socialization, and early training involved in raising juvenile canines, and veterinarians and directors could volunteer to provide these services in their homes . . .  

The result is different for trainers. As discussed above, juvenile canine socialization includes not only routine care but also training. If the nonprofit employs trainers to provide specialized training for canines, as your letter implies, or to care for or socialize the canines, those duties would likely be the same or sufficiently similar to the services performed by juvenile canine caretakers, such that the trainers may not volunteer for your organization to care for or train canines at home.  . . .  This is true regardless whether the employee also performs other work, including exempt work, or whether the employee’s primary duty for purposes of the section 13(a)(1) exemption is caring for or training canines.

For veterinarians and directors whose job duties differ sufficiently from those involved in juvenile canine socialization, the time the employee spends as a volunteer juvenile canine caretaker would not be part of the employee’s employment relationship with your organization for FLSA purposes. In contrast, if the services you employ the employee to perform involve the same or similar type of activities as those involved in juvenile canine socialization, the volunteer hours are part of the employment relationship and must be counted as hours worked for FLSA purposes as long as they qualify as compensable worktime under the FLSA.. . .

Because the volunteer work (which is sufficiently dissimilar from regular job duties) is not considered to be work under the FLSA, no further analysis is required to determine whether the employee’s exempt status is affected.  However, for the exempt dog trainers, further analysis would be required to determine whether raising puppies at home would change the primary duty of their position and affect their exempt status. “If the employee remains exempt under the applicable duty and salary tests, the employee’s salary could serve as compensation for any hours spent raising puppies at home, and no additional compensation would be required.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

DOL Says 60 Minute Break and Walking Time is Not Compensable When Employee is Completely Relieved from Job Duties

 Last month, the federal Department of Labor issued an Opinion Letter 2026-11 finding that a 60-minute break was non-compensable and the employee was not entitled to be paid for time spent walking from her work station to the employee break room if she was completely relieved from duties during that time even if she was prohibited from eating at her work station.  The FLSA does not require employers to provide rest breaks to adult employees. Breaks of up to 20 minutes are generally for the convenience of the employer and must be compensated.  However, meal breaks over thirty minutes – such as this one – are clearly non-compensable. 

[The FLSA]  generally does not require employers to provide employees rest breaks or meal periods.  . . .  And the central issue in most meal break cases is whether the employees were, in fact, relieved from their duties or, instead, were required to “work” for purposes of the Act during their meal period.  . . .  If employees are not relieved from duty during the meal period, then the time is ordinarily considered hours worked and compensable.  . . . The [W&H] Division looks to the duration of the meal period to determine whether it is bona fide and compensable. Typically, “30 minutes or more is long enough for a bona fide meal period.”  . . .  In contrast, short rest breaks of up to 20 minutes in length are considered compensable as “[t]hey promote the efficiency of the employee[.]”  . . .  But these are not rigid, formal requirements. Indeed, meal periods of less than 30 minutes may be considered bona fide and not compensable under certain circumstances— for instance if employees have sufficient time to eat a regular meal or there is an agreement between employer and employee for a period of less than 30 minutes for a meal period.  . . .  If a meal period of facially sufficient duration is significantly reduced through travel time, frequent or lengthy interruptions, or restrictions, then that meal period or portions of it may be compensable.  . . .

 . . . .

Based on the factual representations in your letter, the Division concludes that your employer provides a bona fide meal period under the Act and 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 because you are relieved from your work duties during the break and the period is long enough for you to use it for the  purpose of eating a meal, even accounting for the travel time required by your employer. There is no indication that your employer requires employees to work while they are eating and it appears that employees are relieved from any work responsibilities during that time. Further, the 46 to 54 minutes available for employees after arriving at the break area is more than enough for the purpose of eating a meal. Indeed, this amount of time is much longer than the 30 minutes that is ordinarily sufficient for a bona fide meal period. This analysis focuses on relief from work and the sufficiency of time for the meal after mandatory travel time; the length of travel time is not itself determinative. As such, employees may use the meal period “for the purpose[] of eating regular meals” or for other personal matters . . .

  . . . . .

You also assert that travel time to and from the break area should be compensable because “[e]mployees are not fully relieved of their duties for the purpose of eating a meal until they can access their food in the designated break area[.]” The Division—and most courts—reject the “complete relief from duty” standard and instead evaluate the compensability of meal periods under the predominant benefit test, although a few outliers continue to apply the former formulation. When employees need just a few minutes of travel time to access a break room or other location where they can eat their meal, that time is generally not compensable.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

OSHA Issues Guidance on Employer Response to Workplace Opioid Overdoes That is Consistent with Ohio Statute

 Last month, OSHA releases a two-page guidance about how employers can be prepared for opioid overdoses in the workforce.   Among other things, it suggested stocking  Opioid Overdose Reversal Medications (OORM), training employees to recognize an overdose and administering OORMs and then calling 911 because the drug’s affect is temporary and has no affect unless opioids are present in the subject’s system. “The two FDA-approved OORMs are naloxone and nalmefene, sold under several brand names.”  “Managers, supervisors, and employees should know what to do if someone experiences an overdose at work. Training and education can prepare workers and the community on how to prepare and respond to opioids in the workplace. Having opioid overdose reversal medications (OORMs) on hand can save lives.”  Ohio law provides immunity to administering OORMs if certain conditions are satisfied and 911 is summoned. 

OSHA summarized key training topics which employers should implement:

Key Training Topics for Employees

As more employers keep these medications on hand, it is important that everyone understands how OORMs work. Consider creating a voluntary training program that covers:

• The importance of calling 911 even if the person regains consciousness. Naloxone is not a replacement for emergency medical care.

• Recognizing the signs of an opioid overdose. These may include slow or stopped breathing, blue lips, unresponsiveness, and pinpoint pupils. A gurgling or snoring sound is a red flag that the individual is at risk, as is stupor, cold and clammy skin, coma, or respiratory failure.

• How OORMs work.

• Step-by-step instructions on how to use OORMs.

• The potential need for additional doses. More than one dose may be needed. Follow the dosage and administration instructions in the product labeling.

• Withdrawal symptoms. In people who are dependent on opioids, withdrawal symptoms, such as shaking, sweating, nausea, or feeling angry, may occur after OORM use. This is to be expected.

• The recovery position. How to position someone safely while waiting for emergency services to arrive.

• Good Samaritan laws. These are laws that protect people who help someone during an overdose. Employees should know what protections exist in their state.

Ohio has a number of statutes which govern emergency use of OORMs, including Ohio Revised Code §§ 3715.50  through 3715.505 and §2925.11.  Most applicable is §3715.504, which provides in relevant part:

(A) In the case of an individual who is not otherwise authorized under the Revised Code to administer drugs, the individual may administer an overdose reversal drug under this section. This authority may be exercised by any individual who is in a position to assist another individual who is apparently experiencing an opioid-related overdose.

(B) An individual who administers an overdose reversal drug under the authority conferred by division (A) of this section is not liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property for an act or omission that arises from administering the drug, and not subject to administrative action or criminal prosecution for an act or omission that arises from administering the drug, if the individual, acting in good faith, does all of the following:

(1) Obtains the overdose reversal drug under section 3715.50, 3715.501, 3715.502, or 3715.503 or the Revised Code;

(2) Administers the overdose reversal drug to an individual who is apparently experiencing an opioid-related overdose;

(3) Attempts to summon emergency services as soon as practicable either before or after administering the overdose reversal drug, except that making such an attempt is not required if the individual administering the drug knows that emergency services already have been summoned or are present.

The OORMs must be acquired and stored and subject to training in order to satisfy this statute.  Under §3715.50:

(B) Notwithstanding any conflicting provision of the Revised Code, any person or government entity may purchase, possess, distribute, dispense, personally furnish, sell, or otherwise obtain or provide an overdose reversal drug, which includes any instrument or device used to administer the drug, if all of the following conditions are met:

(1) The overdose reversal drug is in its original manufacturer’s packaging.

(2) The overdose reversal drug’s packaging contains the manufacturer’s instructions for use.

(3) The overdose reversal drug is stored in accordance with the manufacturer’s or distributor’s instructions.

(C) In addition to actions authorized by division (B) of this section, any person or government entity may obtain and maintain a supply of an overdose reversal drug for either or both of the following purposes: for use in an emergency situation and for distribution through an automated mechanism.

(1) In the case of a supply of an overdose reversal drug obtained and maintained for use in an emergency situation, a person or government entity shall do all of the following:

(a) Provide to any individual who accesses the supply instructions regarding emergency administration of the drug, including a specific instruction to summon emergency services as necessary;

(b) Establish a process for replacing within a reasonable time period any overdose reversal drug that has been accessed;

(c) Store the overdose reversal drug in accordance with the manufacturer’s or distributor’s instructions.

(2) In the case of a supply of an overdose reversal drug obtained and maintained for distribution through an automated mechanism, a person or government entity shall do all of the following:

(a) Ensure that the mechanism is securely fastened to a permanent structure or is of an appropriate size and weight to reasonably prevent it from being removed from its intended location;

(b) Provide to any individual who accesses the supply instructions regarding emergency administration of the drug, including a specific instruction to summon emergency services as necessary;

(c) Develop a process for monitoring and replenishing the supply maintained in the automated mechanism;

(d) Store the overdose reversal drug in accordance with the manufacturer’s or distributor’s instructions.

(D) If the authority granted by division (B) or (C) of this section is exercised in good faith, the following immunities apply:

(1) The person or government entity exercising the authority is not subject to administrative action or criminal prosecution and is not liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property for an act or omission that arises from exercising that authority.

(2) After an overdose reversal drug has been dispensed or personally furnished, the person or government entity is not liable for or subject to any of the following for any act or omission of the individual to whom the drug is dispensed or personally furnished: damages in any civil action, prosecution in any criminal proceeding, or professional disciplinary action.

(E)(1) This section does not affect any other authority to issue a prescription for, or personally furnish a supply of, an overdose reversal drug.

(2) This section does not eliminate, limit, or reduce any other immunity or defense that a person or government entity may be entitled to under section 9.86, Chapter 2744., section 4765.49, or any other provision of the Revised Code or the common law of this state.

For more information, you can consult: One Call Could Save A Life | Ohio Department of Health, Laws & Rules | Get Naloxone, and Drug Overdose and Ohio’s Good Samaritan Law |OhioSTART.

 

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Franklin County Court of Appeals Upholds Termination of Direct Care Employee on Same Day of Background Check Showing Legally Prohibitted Convictions and Rejects Hostile Work Environment Based on Two Incidents

Last week, the Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed an employer’s summary judgment on a retaliation/hostile work environment claim because the plaintiff employee failed to prove sufficient facts that the alleged harassment was sufficiently pervasive and could not show his termination was pretext when Medicaid regulations prohibited his direct care employment when his background check reflected violent criminal convictions.  Garnett v. ViaQuest Residential Servs., L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-3742.   The Court found that the alleged two incidents were isolated in nature and had not been viewed by the plaintiff as sexual or harassment at the time, but merely disrespectful.  Further, “Ohio courts have repeatedly recognized that an employer’s enforcement of a legal disqualification is a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for termination.” 

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been hired in early February 2023 and was fired a month later on the same day that his mandated background check revealed two convictions for felonious assault which Medicaid regulations prohibited when working in direct care positions with the elderly regardless of the date of the conviction.  ”Notwithstanding that appellant had two prior convictions for felonious assault, one in 2004 and one in 2006—which he does not dispute—he signed a verification form stating he did not have any disqualifying offenses, along with an authorization to conduct the background check.”    More than a year later, he filed suit alleging a hostile work environment and retaliatory discharge for complaining.   He alleged that a female supervisor had made inappropriate comments to him in her home on February 13 and had made unprofessional comments to him a few weeks later.   However, he not only failed to report the first incident to management, he had continued to exchange friendly text messages with that manager after the fact, including a Valentine’s Day message.  As for the second incident, while he reported that he felt disrespected by her comments, he never alleged prior to his termination that he believed he was being sexually harassed.

The Court of Appeals agreed that the alleged harassment was not sufficiently or objectively severe or pervasive so as to affect the terms and conditions of employment or his work performance.  

Here, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to appellant—i.e., even assuming everything he has asserted regarding the February 13, 2023 incident is true— under the Harris factors set forth above, this isolated incident does not rise to the level of actionable harassment. The conduct was neither severe nor pervasive, was not physically threatening or humiliating, and did not interfere with appellant’s job performance. Indeed, appellant conceded at his deposition that he did not view the behavior of [his manager] at her home as harassment, but rather as her “trying to make a play. That’s what I call it . . . and I just chose not to.” . . .

Although appellant’s characterization of [his manager’s] behavior as “trying to make a play” potentially could be construed as being sexual in nature when read in isolation, other testimony of appellant makes clear that he did not view it as so. For example, appellant also testified that [she] had asked him to be her “special friend,” but he described such a relationship as being her sidekick or henchman, rather than some sort of sexual reference. Id. at 157-159. He further explained that [she] wanted him to take over as one of her “besties,” like Sam  . . . , because Sam was leaving for another position. Id. at 159. Finally, appellant testified that he walked away from the February 13, 2023 encounter thinking she is power-hungry and belittles and disrespects the people she manages, not thinking she wanted to engage in sexual conduct with him. Id. Accordingly, the February 13, 2023 incident cannot support a hostile work environment claim. {¶ 18}

As for the March 5, 2023 staff meeting incident, even assuming it is true that [his manager] snapped her fingers at appellant, patted her thigh and gestured to him to “come here,” this behavior cannot support a hostile work environment claim. As is the case with the February 13, 2023 incident, this is an isolated incident. Furthermore, while [her] behavior toward appellant may have been disrespectful, the behavior was not sexual in nature. Notably, appellant acknowledged this in his deposition: that he felt disrespected. (See Garnett Dep.) But being disrespected by your supervisor at work is not the same thing as harassment; it is instead ordinary workplace friction.

As for the retaliation claim, the Court agreed that the employer was legally required to terminate the plaintiff from his direct care position because Medicaid regulation prohibited individuals with his undisputed criminal convictions from providing direct care to elderly and/or developmentally disabled clients. 

 

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.