Title: Cheek v. Indus. Powder Coatings, Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

CHEEK, RESPONDENT, v. INDUSTRIAL POWDER COATINGS, INC. ET AL., PETITIONERS. 
[Cite as Cheek v. Indus. Powder Coatings, Inc. (1999), ___ Ohio St.3d ___.] 
Labor and industry — Civil rights — Employment discrimination — Industrial 
liability for alleged violations of the employment discrimination provisions 
of the Ohio Civil Rights Act. 
(No. 97-1962 — Submitted February 10, 1999 — Decided March 10, 1999.) 
ON ORDER from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, 
Western Division, Certifying Question of State Law, No. 3:96CV7771. 
__________________ 
 
Reese M. Wineman, for respondent. 
 
Ziegler, Metzger & Miller L.L.P., Stephen M. Bales and John E. Redeker, for 
petitioners. 
__________________ 
 
Pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII, the United States District Court certified the 
question of “Whether an individual employee, not otherwise deemed to be an 
‘employer’ under the statute, may be individually liable for alleged violations of 
the employment discrimination provisions of the Ohio Civil Rights Act, Ohio 
Rev.Code §§ 4112.01(A)(2), 4112.02(A) & 4112.99?” 
 
Our response is in the affirmative.  See Genaro v. Cent. Transport, Inc. 
(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 293, 703 N.E.2d 782. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and COOK, JJ., 
concur. 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissents. 
__________________ 
 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., dissenting.  I disagree with the majority for the 
reasons set out in the dissenting opinions in Genaro v. Cent. Transport, Inc. 
(1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 293, 703 N.E.2d 782.  I would hold that the General 
 
2
Assembly intended R.C. Chapter 4112 to impose liability only on employers, not 
on an employer’s managers or supervisors.  Therefore, I respectfully dissent.