Title: Purnell v. Orthopedic Offices, Inc.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
                                                                                 
              **** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****                               
                                                                                 
     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 Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  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.                                            
                                                                                 
Purnell, Appellant, v. Orthopaedic Offices, Inc., Appellee                       
(1994),     Ohio St.3d    .]                                                     
Employer and employee -- Sex and handicap discrimination --                      
     R.C. 4112.99 is a remedial statute and is subject to R.C.                   
     2305.07's six-year limitations period.                                      
     (No. 94-1701 -- Submitted November 15, 1994 -- Decided                      
December 14, 1994.)                                                              
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No.                   
C-930176.                                                                        
                                                                                 
     Jacobs, Kleinman, Seibel & McNally and Mark J. Byrne, for                   
appellant.                                                                       
     Thompson, Hine & Flory and Deborah DeLong, for appellee.                    
                                                                                 
     The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the                    
cause is remanded to the trial court on the authority of                         
Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co. Inc. (1994), 70                  
Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991.                                                  
     A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ.,                    
concur.                                                                          
     Moyer, C.J., concurs separately.                                            
     F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents.                                                 
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
                                    No. 94-1701                                  
                                    Moyer, C.J., Concurring                      
                                    Separately                                   
                                    December 2, 1994                             
                                    File No. 8451                                
                                    Doc. No. 2397Y                               
                                                                                 
                                                                                 
     Moyer, C.J., concurring separately.    I concur separately                  
in the judgment entry in the above-styled case.  As stated in                    
the concurring opinion in Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of                            
Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d                  
991, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority                       
decision.  Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the                       
above-styled case.  As I believe all parties should receive                      
equal application of the law announced by this court, and only                   
for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.