Case ID: ohio-st-3d_65/html/0482-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Holmes, Judge,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Taylor v. National Group of Companies, Inc. et al.
    [Cite as Taylor v. Natl. Group of Cos., Inc. (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 482.]
    (No. 91-2108 —
    Submitted November 9, 1992 —
    Decided December 11, 1992.)
    
      Bruce Comly French, for petitioner.
    
      Manahdn, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and Glenn E. Wasielewski; Hunt, Moritz & Johnson and Jerry M. Johnson, for respondents.
   The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question to us:

“May the plaintiff demand a jury trial of her claims under § 4112.99, where the gravamen of the claim is discrimination on the basis of sex?”

The certified question is answered in the affirmative. See Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 135, 573 N.E.2d 1056; and cf. Hoops v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 97, 553 N.E.2d 252.

Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur.

Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur separately.

Holmes, Judge,

concurring.

. Although I dissented in Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank, and still personally adhere to the view espoused in such dissent, the policy of stare decisis prevails, and I must concur with the majority on that basis.

Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.