Title: Taylor v. Natl. Group of Cos., Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Yitzchak E. Gold, Assistant Court                          
Reporter.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.  Your                  
comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                                 
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
     Taylor v. National Group of Companies, Inc. et al.                          
     [Cite as Taylor v. Natl. Group of Cos., Inc. (1992),                        
Ohio St.3d    .]                                                                 
Employer and employee -- Sexual harassment -- Plaintiff may                      
     demand jury trial of her claims under R.C. 4112.99 where                    
     gravamen of claim is discrimination on the basis of sex.                    
     (No. 91-2108 -- Submitted November 9, 1992 -- Decided                       
December 11, 1992.)                                                              
     On Order from the United States District Court for the                      
Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Certifying a                        
Question of State Law, No. C:89CV7009.                                           
                                                                                 
     Bruce Comly French, for petitioner.                                         
     Manahan, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and Glenn E.                        
Wasielewski; Hunt, Moritz & Johnson and Jerry M. Johnson, for                    
respondents.                                                                     
                                                                                 
     The United States District Court for the Northern District                  
of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question                  
to us:                                                                           
     "May the plaintiff demand a jury trial of her claims under                  
{4112.99, where the gravamen of the claim is discrimination on                   
the basis of sex?"                                                               
     The certified question is answered in the affirmative.                      
See Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 135,                     
573 N.E.2d 1056; and cf. Hoops v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio                        
(1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 97, 553 N.E.2d 252.                                        
     Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ.,                   
concur.                                                                          
     Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur separately.                                  
                                                                                 
     Holmes, J., concurring.   Although I dissented in Elek v.                   
Huntington Natl. Bank, and still personally adhere to the view                   
espoused in such dissent, the policy of stare decisis prevails,                  
and I must concur with the majority on that basis.                               
     Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.