Case Title: Hood v. Diamond Products, Inc.

Citation: 1996-Ohio-259

Docket Number: 19941217

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1996-01-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
HOOD, APPELLANT, v. DIAMOND PRODUCTS, INC. ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as Hood v. Diamond Products, Inc. (1996), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Employment relations — Termination of employment — Requirements to 
establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination — Cancer may be 
a “handicap” as that term is defined in former R.C. 4112.01(A)(13). 
1. 
In order to establish a prima facie case of handicap discrimination, the 
person seeking relief must demonstrate (1) that he or she was handicapped, 
(2) that an adverse employment action was taken by an employer, at least in 
part, because the individual was handicapped, and (3) that the person, 
though handicapped, can safely and substantially perform the essential 
functions of the job in question.  (Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. [1986], 
25 Ohio St.3d 279, 25 OBR 331, 496 N.E.2d 478, followed.) 
2. 
Cancer may be a “handicap” as that term is defined in former R.C. 
4112.01(A)(13). 
 
(No. 94-1217 — Submitted September 26, 1995 — Decided January 17, 
1996.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No. 93CA005649. 
 
In 1988, appellant, Christine S. Hood, was hired as a sales secretary by 
Diamond Products, Inc. (“Diamond”), appellee.  Appellant was eventually given 
 
2
the title of executive secretary.  She performed all facets of secretarial duties for 
various company personnel, including, among others, Karl H. Moller, Diamond’s 
chief executive officer and president, James N. Warren, the company’s sales and 
marketing manager, and Thomas C. Ferrara, a former marketing director at 
Diamond.  Appellant was fired from her employment with Diamond effective 
December 9, 1991. 
 
On June 3, 1992, appellant filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas 
of Lorain County against appellees, Diamond and TDP Joint Venture.  In her 
complaint, appellant alleged, inter alia, that appellees fired her without just cause 
and discriminated against her in violation of R.C. 4112.02(A).  Appellant claimed 
that during her employment with Diamond she was diagnosed with and was 
treated for cancer of the bladder, that she was fired because of the cancer, and that 
her condition was a “handicap” as that term is defined in former R.C. 
4112.01(A)(13). 
 
The following relevant matters were elicited upon discovery and by way of 
sworn affidavit.  
 
Appellant testified, by way of affidavit and deposition, that in October 
1989, she observed blood in her urine and, following a biopsy and the removal of 
 
3
two tumors, she was diagnosed with bladder cancer.  According to appellant, she 
informed Warren about the results of the biopsy and she informed both Warren 
and Moller that she would need to take time off from work for surgery.  Following 
the surgery, appellant was told by her doctors that the cancer had been eradicated 
with the initial removal of the two tumors.  However, in March 1990, the cancer 
reappeared, necessitating chemotherapy treatments.  Appellant stated that she 
informed Warren and Moller of her status and the need for chemotherapy 
treatments. 
 
Appellant indicated that she had undergone numerous chemotherapy 
treatments.  The individual treatments lasted a few hours and could only be 
administered during weekday business hours.  As a result, appellant was required 
to be absent, at various times, from work.  Appellant indicated that she usually 
made up the time she missed from work and that she scheduled and/or rescheduled 
treatments for Friday afternoons in order to minimize interfering with work.  
Appellant also explained that the third series of chemotherapy treatments she 
received caused her extreme pain, that they affected her sleep, and that on the day 
immediately following the treatments it was necessary “to visit the bathroom every 
fifteen or twenty minutes.” 
 
4
 
During her deposition, appellant testified that as a consequence of her 
cancer, she was asked to keep a log of the hours she worked and that her 
supervisor, Warren, began to abuse her “verbally.”  Additionally, appellant 
indicated that her June 1991 job evaluation review was downgraded unjustifiably 
by Warren.  According to appellant, when she approached and questioned Warren 
about certain low scores she had received on the review, Warren would not discuss 
the matter with her.  Appellant also testified that on one occasion when she had 
rescheduled a chemotherapy treatment from a Friday to a Monday so that she 
could visit her ailing mother during a Thanksgiving Day holiday, she was told by 
Warren that “Well, then what you’re telling me is that last week, your mother was 
more important than your health, but this week, your health is more important than 
your job.” 
 
The record also contains the depositions of Ferrara, Moller and Warren.  
Ferrara testified that he and Warren had discussed appellant’s condition (cancer 
and chemotherapy treatments).  Ferrara stated that Warren was aware that 
appellant had cancer and that he (Warren) was extremely “agitated relative to her 
absenteeism and tardiness * * *.”  Ferrara stated that appellant was overworked, 
 
5
that she was a competent and good secretary, and that she routinely worked extra 
hours to compensate for the time that she had missed from work due to the cancer. 
 
Moller and Warren testified that they were not aware that appellant had 
cancer.  However, Warren did indicate that he was aware that appellant had 
received chemotherapy treatments.  According to Moller and Warren, they 
believed that appellant’s absences from work were due to “female problems.”  
Warren testified that appellant was a good secretary and that she made up time lost 
from work.  
 
At their depositions, Moller and Warren claimed that the reason appellant 
was fired was because of her dishonesty surrounding the compilation of a 
“Christmas list” consisting of company employee addresses.  According to Moller, 
appellant had falsely used his name as authorization for compiling the addresses 
and when questioned about the incident appellant denied using his (Moller’s) 
name. 
 
On March 31, 1993, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment.  In 
their brief, appellees asserted, essentially, that appellant failed to establish a prima 
facie case of handicap discrimination, and that appellant failed to show that the 
reason for her discharge was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. 
 
6
 
Appellant responded to the motion for summary judgment and attached, 
among other things, her personal affidavit and portions of her deposition 
testimony.  In her affidavit, appellant set forth the nature and extent of her alleged 
handicap. 
 
On May 26, 1993, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of 
appellees.  The trial court, however, did not provide a specific basis for its 
decision. 
 
On appeal, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.  The 
court of appeals held that appellant failed to establish that appellees had violated 
R.C. 4112.02(A).  Specifically, the court of appeals held that, because appellant 
did not provide expert medical testimony outlining the nature and effect of her 
condition, appellant failed to demonstrate that she was handicapped. 
 
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a 
discretionary appeal. 
___________________ 
 
Spangenberg, Shibley, Traci, Lancione & Liber, Ellen Simon Sacks and 
Michael T. Pearson, for appellant. 
 
7
 
Seeley, Savidge & Aussem Co., L.P.A., Carter R. Dodge and Keith A. 
Savidge, for appellees. 
 
Louis A. Jacobs; Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman and Frederick M. Gittes, 
urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Employment Lawyers Association. 
 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, G. Ross Bridgman, Robert A. Minor and 
Richard T. Miller, urging affirmance for amici curiae, Ohio Manufacturers’ 
Association and Ohio Chamber of Commerce. 
___________________ 
 
DOUGLAS, J.  The primary issue before this court is whether the court of 
appeals properly concluded that summary judgment in favor of appellees was 
appropriate.  For the reasons that follow, we answer this question in the negative 
and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals. 
 
Handicap discrimination in employment situations is prohibited by R.C. 
4112.02(A).1  This statutory2 provision provides that: 
 
“It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice: 
 
“(A)  For any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, national 
origin, handicap, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without just cause, to 
refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, 
 
8
tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or 
indirectly related to employment.”  (Emphasis added.) 
 
This court has held that in order to establish a prima facie case of handicap 
discrimination, the person seeking relief must demonstrate (1) that he or she was 
handicapped, (2) that an adverse employment action was taken by an employer, at 
least in part, because the individual was handicapped, and (3) that the person, 
though handicapped, can safely and substantially perform the essential functions 
of the job in question.  Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 
279, 281, 25 OBR 331, 333, 496 N.E.2d 478, 480.  Once the plaintiff establishes a 
prima facie case of handicap discrimination, the burden then shifts to the employer 
to set forth some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken.  
Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. 
(1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 197, 20 O.O.3d 200, 203, 421 N.E.2d 128, 132.  
Legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for the action taken by the employer may 
include, but are not limited to, insubordination on the part of the employee 
claiming discrimination, or the inability of the employee or prospective employee 
to safely and substantially perform, with reasonable accommodations, the essential 
functions of the job in question.  See, e.g., Ohio Adm.Code 4112-5-08(D)(4) and 
 
9
(E).  Finally, if the employer establishes a nondiscriminatory reason for the action 
taken, then the employee or prospective employee must demonstrate that the 
employer’s stated reason was a pretext for impermissible discrimination.  
Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Commt., supra, 66 Ohio St.2d at 
198, 20 O.O.3d at 203, 421 N.E.2d at 132. 
 
The case we now have before us concerns only whether appellant was 
“handicapped” — the first element of a prima facie case of handicap 
discrimination.  The version of R.C. 4112.01(A)(13), in effect at the time 
appellant’s employment was terminated by her employer, provided that: 
 
“(13)  ‘Handicap’ means a medically diagnosable, abnormal condition 
which is expected to continue for a considerable length of time, whether 
correctable or uncorrectable by good medical practice, which can reasonably be 
expected to limit the person’s functional ability, including, but not limited to, 
seeing, hearing, thinking, ambulating, climbing, descending, lifting, grasping, 
sitting, rising, any related function, or any limitation due to weakness and 
significantly decreased endurance, so that he can not perform his everyday routine 
living and working without significantly increased hardship and vulnerability to 
 
10
what are considered the everyday obstacles and hazards encountered by the 
nonhandicapped.”  143 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4156. 
 
In Hazlett, supra, this court reviewed former R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) and held 
that alcohol and drug addiction are, pursuant to the statute, handicaps.  Id. at 
syllabus.  See, also, Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1987), 31 
Ohio St.3d 222, 31 OBR 430, 510 N.E.2d 368.3  In Hazlett, this court recognized 
that drug addiction can create a debilitating chemical imbalance that is an 
abnormal physical condition, that such an addiction may limit the user’s functional 
ability, and that the effects of the drug can remain in the body for a considerable 
period of time.  Id., 25 Ohio St.3d at 280, 25 OBR at 332, 496 N.E.2d at 479.  
Recognizing this, we also find that cancer may be a “handicap” as that term is 
defined in former R.C. 4112.01(A)(13).  Obviously, however, given the 
requirements of the statute and the fact that many types and forms of the disease 
exist, the determination whether cancer is a handicap should be made on a case-
by-case basis.  In reaching this conclusion, we do not wish to imply that cancer is 
not a serious condition.  Indeed, many individuals have been afflicted by and 
suffer from this dreadful disease.  However, there may be instances where cancer 
is not so pernicious in its effect to warrant a finding that the person who is 
 
11
afflicted with the disease is “handicapped” as that term is defined in former R.C. 
4112.01(A)(13).4  In this regard, we reject appellant’s contention that cancer 
should be classified, in all cases, as a per se handicap. 
 
Having determined that cancer may be a handicap, we next consider 
whether the court of appeals in the case at bar erred in finding that appellant’s 
testimony in support of her motion for summary judgment was insufficient to 
establish “that she suffered a covered condition and was within the class to be 
protected.”  In particular, the court determined that appellant’s affidavit was “self-
serving” testimony and hearsay, and that expert medical testimony was necessary 
to demonstrate that she suffered from her alleged handicap.  We disagree.  While 
the better practice in this type of situation would have been to submit expert 
medical testimony, we do not believe that under the circumstances of this 
particular case such testimony was required. 
 
Civ.R. 56 sets forth the requirements that must be applied in determining 
whether appellees are entitled to summary judgment.  Hence, to meet the 
requirements of Civ.R. 56(C), it must be demonstrated that:  “(1) No genuine issue 
as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to 
judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable 
 
12
minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly 
in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against 
whom the motion for summary judgment is made.”  Davis v. Loopco Industries, 
Inc. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 64, 65-66, 609 N.E.2d 144, 145, citing Temple v. Wean 
United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 4 O.O.3d 466, 472, 364 N.E.2d 267, 
274.  Furthermore, “[b]ecause summary judgment is a procedural device to 
terminate litigation, it must be awarded with caution.  Doubts must be resolved in 
favor of the nonmoving party.”  Davis, supra, 66 Ohio St.3d at 66, 609 N.E.2d at 
145, citing Murphy v. Reynoldsburg (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359, 604 
N.E.2d 138, 140. 
 
The evidence in the record, construed in appellant’s favor as required by 
Civ.R. 56, supports a finding that appellant’s ailment was an abnormal, 
diagnosable, long-term condition, and that her condition caused functional 
limitations resulting in significantly increased hardship and vulnerability to 
everyday obstacles and hazards.  Specifically, appellant testified that she had been 
diagnosed with bladder cancer (which is now not seriously contested by appellees) 
and that she had, by necessity, undergone numerous chemotherapy treatments over 
an extended period of time.  The record also reveals that Diamond was aware that 
 
13
appellant had received chemotherapy treatments.  Additionally, appellant also 
explained how her illness had required hospitalization and that the treatments she 
received in attempting to combat the disease adversely affected her everyday 
living and working environment.  Such testimony was clearly within the personal 
knowledge of appellant.  See Civ.R. 56(E)5 and Evid.R. 602.6  Thus, applying the 
standards of Civ.R. 56, we find that questions whether appellant was 
“handicapped” pursuant to former R.C. 4112.01(A)(13), for purposes of summary 
judgment, must be resolved in appellant’s favor. 
 
Accordingly, we hold that summary judgment was improperly granted in 
favor of appellees.  We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand 
this cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
 
RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., WRIGHT and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
FOOTNOTES: 
1. 
R.C. 4112.01 and 4112.02 have an interesting legislative history.  The 
General Assembly amended both sections with an effective date of May 31, 1990.  
 
14
143 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4154.  As part of the amendment to R.C. 4112.02, the 
General Assembly, at the conclusion of the text, said that “[t]his is an interim 
section effective only until January 1, 1994.”  Id. at 4162.  At the same time as the 
1990 amendments were adopted, the General Assembly also passed a second new 
version of R.C. 4112.02, to be effective January 1, 1994.  Id. at 4162-4168. 
 
But before the 1994 date was reached, the General Assembly then passed 
new versions of R.C. 4112.01 and 4112.02, with an effective date of June 30, 
1992. 144 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4743.  As part of this legislation, the General 
Assembly repealed the version of R.C. 4112.02 which was to have taken effect on 
January 1, 1994.  Id. at 4782. 
 
Thus, the law in effect today, as regards R.C. 4112.01 and 4112.02, is the 
version of the law enacted effective June 30, 1992.  However, the law we deal 
with in the case at bar is the version of both R.C. 4112.01 and 4112.02 effective 
May 31, 1990, since the discrimination alleged occurred on December 9, 1991 — 
i.e., before the revised statute (effective June 30, 1992) which is now in effect. 
 
For any case of an alleged unlawful discriminatory practice involving 
handicaps, alcohol and/or drugs occurring after June 30, 1992, interested persons 
 
15
are cautioned to review the current version of R.C. 4112.01 and 4112.02 and, 
specifically, R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) and 4112.02(Q). 
2. 
Section (A) of R.C. 4112.02 has not been changed.  The language is the 
same in the 1990 version of the legislation, the 1994 proposed version (repealed 
by the General Assembly in 1992) and the current 1992 version.  See 143 Ohio 
Laws, Part III, 4156, 4162; 144 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4756. 
3. 
For the continued efficacy of Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1986), 25 
Ohio St.3d 279, 25 OBR 331, 496 N.E.2d 478, and Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Ohio 
Civ. Rights Comm. (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 222, 31 OBR 430, 510 N.E.2d 368, see 
fn. 1, supra. 
4. 
In the 1992 version of R.C. 4112.01 (the current version), subsection 
(16)(a)(iii) specifically lists cancer as a “physical or mental impairment.” 
5. 
Civ.R. 56(E) provides, in part, that: 
 
“Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be shall be made on personal 
knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall 
show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated 
therein.”  (Emphasis added.) 
6. 
Evid.R. 602 states, in part, that: 
 
16
 
“A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced 
sufficient to support a finding that he has personal knowledge of the matter.  
Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the testimony 
of the witness himself.” 
 
 
COOK, J., dissenting.  I respectfully dissent.  Although the syllabus law in 
this case is unassailable, given our summary judgment standard, I agree with the 
court of appeals and would affirm the summary judgment in favor of Diamond 
Products. 
 
Diamond Products moved for summary judgment on the basis that Hood 
could not prove that her cancer was a handicap under former R.C. 4112.01(A)(13).  
Specifically, Diamond Products contended that Hood could not prove that her 
cancer clearly limited her “functional abilities” or that her cancer affected her 
ability to perform her “everyday routine living and working without significantly 
increased hardship.”  Diamond Products’ motion for summary judgment forced 
Hood “to produce evidence on any issue for which [Hood would bear] the burden 
of production at trial.”  Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 
108, 570 N.E.2d 1095, paragraph three of the syllabus. 
 
17
 
The issue in this case is simply whether Hood’s deposition and affidavit 
were competent evidence to raise an issue of material fact that Hood’s cancer 
limited her “functional ability * * * [to] perform [her] everyday routine living and 
working without significantly increased hardship and vulnerability to what are 
considered 
the 
everyday 
obstacles 
and 
hazards 
encountered 
by 
the 
nonhandicapped.”  Former R.C. 4112.01(A)(13).  (143 Ohio Laws, Part III, 4156.)  
The statutory definition requires such evidence to relate to “a medically 
diagnosable, abnormal condition which is expected to continue for a considerable 
length of time” and “which can reasonably be expected to limit the person’s 
functional ability.”  Hood’s testimony on those issues was dependent upon the 
medical diagnosis and opinion of medical experts. 
 
While Hood had personal knowledge of her adverse reactions to 
chemotherapy, her statements concerning the continuation of her cancer and the 
expectation of the limits of her functional abilities were not based on her firsthand 
knowledge.  Thus, Hood’s evidence as to those issues was not competent under 
Civ.R. 56(E).  Hood, therefore, did not sustain her burden of demonstrating that a 
dispute on a genuine issue of material fact existed.  In my view, the trial court 
properly granted summary judgment in favor of Diamond Products. 
 
18
 
MOYER, C.J., and WRIGHT, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.