Title: Keener v. Legacy Health Serv.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as Keener v. Legacy Health Serv., 96 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2002-Ohio-3571.] 
 
 
KEENER, APPELLANT, v. LEGACY HEALTH SERVICES, APPELLEE. 
[Cite as Keener v. Legacy Health Serv., 96 Ohio St.3d 1204, 2002-Ohio-3571.] 
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed. 
(No. 2001-1566 — Submitted June 4, 2002 — Decided July 31, 2002.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 78536, 2001-Ohio-
4384. 
__________________ 
{¶1} 
The cause is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been improvidently 
allowed. 
 
DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., dissent. 
__________________ 
 
PFEIFER, J., dissenting. 
{¶2} 
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to declare that 
this case was improvidently allowed.  In Kohmescher v. Kroger Co. (1991), 61 
Ohio St.3d 501, 575 N.E.2d 439 syllabus, this court stated, “Absent direct 
evidence of age discrimination, in order to establish a prima facie case of [age 
discrimination] in an employment discharge action, plaintiff-employee must 
demonstrate (1) that he or she was a member of the statutorily protected class, (2) 
that he or she was discharged, (3) that he or she was qualified for the position, and 
(4) that he or she was replaced by, or that the discharge permitted the retention of, 
a person not belonging to the protected class.  (Barker v. Scovill, Inc. [1983], 6 
Ohio St.3d 146, 6 OBR 202, 451 N.E.2d 807, paragraph one of the syllabus, 
modified and explained.)”   
{¶3} 
I am convinced that the fourth part of the test in Kohmescher 
should be reviewed and that this case provides this court with an appropriate 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
opportunity to do so.  The “ultimate inquiry in age discrimination cases [is] 
whether plaintiff was discharged on account of age.”  Id., 61 Ohio St.3d at 505, 
575 N.E.2d 439.  I believe that it is possible for an employee to be discharged on 
account of age even when he is replaced by a person belonging to the protected 
class.  Accordingly, I dissent. 
 
MOYER, C.J., and COOK, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion. 
__________________ 
 
Michael Terrence Conway Co. and Michael Terrence Conway, for 
appellant. 
 
Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff, L.L.P., Margaret A. Kennedy 
and Ann E. Knuth, for appellee. 
__________________