Case Title: Retterer v. Whirlpool Corp.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-129

Docket Number: 19990818

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-06-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as Retterer v. Whirlpool Corp., 89 Ohio St.3d 1215, 2000-Ohio-129.] 
 
 
 
RETTERER, APPELLANT, v. WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Retterer v. Whirlpool Corp. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 1215.] 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
(No. 99-818 — Submitted February 23, 2000 — Decided June 21, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Marion County, No. 9-98-55. 
__________________ 
 
Elliot T. Fishman Co., L.P.A., Elliot T. Fishman and W. Bryon Speakman, 
for appellant. 
 
David J. Parsons and Shanthi V. Gaur, pro hac vice; Frericks & Howard 
and Thomas A. Frericks, for appellees. 
 
Louis A. Jacobs; Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman and Frederick M. 
Gittes, urging reversal for amici curiae, Ohio Employment Lawyers Association 
et al. 
__________________ 
 
The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently allowed. 
 
The court orders that the court of appeals’ opinion not be published in the 
Ohio Official Reports and that it may not be cited as authority except by the 
parties inter se. 
 
MOYER, C.J., F.E. SWEENEY, COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK and PFEIFER, JJ., concur separately. 
 
DOUGLAS, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., concurring.  Appellant, Douglas Retterer, allegedly 
encountered unwelcome sexual remarks and touching from supervisors and 
coworkers while he was an employee of Whirlpool Corporation at its Marion 
plant.  Retterer also allegedly was the subject of continuous ridicule because of 
 
 
2 
his sexual orientation.  Retterer filed a complaint against Whirlpool and his 
coworkers on April 20, 1994, alleging, among other things, sexual harassment.  
The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendants 
on November 7, 1995.  On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeals reinstated 
most of Retterer’s causes of action but upheld the dismissal of the sexual-
harassment claim.  The court found that Retterer’s claims sounded in sexual-
orientation discrimination, which was not actionable in Ohio. Retterer v. 
Whirlpool Corp. (1996), 111 Ohio App.3d 847, 860, 677 N.E.2d 417. 
 
Importantly, Retterer failed to appeal that decision.  The court of appeals’ 
judgment thus became the law of the case, foreclosing Retterer from reasserting 
his claim of sexual harassment.  Upon remand of the case, Retterer attempted to 
reinstate his sexual-harassment claim based upon the United States Supreme 
Court’s ruling in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998), 523 U.S. 
75, 118 S.Ct. 998, 140 L.Ed.2d 201, in which the court held that same-sex sexual-
harassment claims are actionable under Title VII.  Retterer’s motion to amend his 
complaint was properly denied. 
 
I write to make clear that this case was improvidently allowed based 
primarily on procedure.  Retterer had an opportunity to appeal the decision of the 
appellate court, but did not.  He is therefore forced to live with that decision. 
 
Retterer’s sexual-harassment claim should have survived summary 
judgment.  On this day, this court held that “R.C. 4112.02(A) protects men as well 
as women from all forms of sex discrimination in the workplace, including 
discrimination consisting of same-sex sexual harassment.” Hampel v. Food 
Ingredients Specialties, Inc. (2000), 89 Ohio St.3d 169, 729 N.E.2d 726, 
paragraph three of the syllabus.  This case might have presented the opportunity 
for us to consider whether discrimination based upon sexual orientation is also 
actionable under R.C. 4112.02(A).  The abusive behavior that might give rise to 
such a cause of action continues to exist even in this supposedly enlightened day, 
 
 
3 
and certainly it is only a matter of time before the question of sexual-orientation 
discrimination (and whether it is merely the opposite side of the same sexual-
harassment coin) is properly before this court. 
 
RESNICK, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.