Ohio Appeals Court Denies Unemployment to Employee Claiming Continued Harassment

Earlier this month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation to an employee who resigned following her second complaint about her supervisor sexually harassing her.  Loughman v. Ohio Dept. of Pub. Safety, 2016-Ohio-1086.   Within a few months of being hired, the claimant complained about her supervisor sexually harassing her and he was disciplined following an investigation.   She returned to working for him and complained six months later that the harassment continued.  She was transferred into another position pending the investigation and offered four other possible positions in different sections (away from her former supervisor).   Plaintiff abruptly resigned her position a week later and filed for unemployment compensation on the grounds that she had been subjected to intolerable conditions when the harassment did not stop after her first complaint.  The Court  concluded that the employee’s resignation was unjustified under the circumstances because her second complaint was still under investigation and she had been immediately removed from the allegedly harassing situation once she made her second complaint.

In order to show that an employee was justified in resigning, the employee must first bring the intolerable situation to the employer’s attention in order to give the employer a realistic opportunity to cure the situation before the employee resigns.   If the employer fails to correct the situation, the employee may be justified in resigning and need not indefinitely subject herself to a hostile work environment.  In this case, the employee failed to explain how the employer’s discipline of the harassing supervisor following her initial complaint was insufficient.  She did not raise the issue again for six months and never alleged that the employer was aware before then that the harassment had continued.

She also could not show that the employer’s response to her second complaint was insufficient because she was immediately removed from the harassing situation, offered another position and began a second investigation (which had not yet concluded at the time she resigned).

The Court also refused to excuse the employee of the obligation to notify it of a medical condition which contributed to her resignation.

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 be changed or 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.