Case Title: Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp.

Citation: 2004-Ohio-1775

Docket Number: 20030426

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2004-04-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp., 102 Ohio St.3d 8, 2004-Ohio-1775.] 
 
 
WELLER v. TITANIUM METALS CORPORATION ET AL. 
[Cite as Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp., 102 Ohio St.3d 8, 2004-Ohio-1775.] 
Employment — Age discrimination — R.C. 4112.14(A) — Judgment decided on 
the authority of Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A. 
(No. 2003-0426 — Submitted October 21, 2003 — Decided April 21, 2004.) 
ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, 
Eastern Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. C:202290. 
__________________ 
{¶1} We answer the certified question by citing the syllabus in Coryell v. 
Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175, 2004-Ohio-723, 803 N.E.2d 781: 
{¶2} “1. 
Absent direct evidence of age discrimination, in order to 
establish a prima facie case of a violation of R.C. 4112.14(A) in an employment 
discharge action, a plaintiff-employee must demonstrate that he or she (1) was a 
member of the statutorily protected class, (2) was discharged, (3) was qualified 
for the position, and (4) was replaced by, or the discharge permitted the retention 
of, a person of substantially younger age.  (Kohmescher v. Kroger Co. [1991], 61 
Ohio St.3d 501, 575 N.E.2d 439, syllabus, modified and explained.) 
{¶3} “2. 
The term ‘substantially younger’ as applied to age 
discrimination in employment cases defies an absolute definition and is best 
determined after considering the particular circumstances of each case. 
{¶4} “3. 
A plaintiff may plead a prima facie case of age discrimination 
by pleading ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the party is 
entitled to relief.’ (Civ.R. 8[A][1], applied.)” 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and O’CONNOR, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting. 
 
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in 
Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co. N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175, 2004-Ohio-723, 803 
N.E.2d 781, ¶ 28-30. 
__________________ 
 
Tisone & Associates Co., L.P.A., and Raymond J. Tisone, for petitioner. 
 
Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., and George Yund, for respondents. 
 
Gittes & Schulte and Frederick M. Gittes, for amici curiae AARP, Ohio 
Academy of Trial Lawyers, Ohio Employment Lawyers Association, and Ohio 
Civil Rights Commission. 
__________________