[Cite as Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2022-Ohio-1598.]

{¶1} Pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4(D), Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is now

before the Court for a non-oral hearing. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS

the motion.

Standard of Review

{¶2} Motions for summary judgment are reviewed under the standard set forth in 

Civ.R. 56(C), which states, in part:

Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, 

transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in 

the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

that the moving party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. 

No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as stated in this rule. 

A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the 

evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that 

reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is 

adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is 

made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or stipulation construed 

most strongly in the party’s favor.

ROGER HINTON, et al.

 Plaintiffs

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH 

SERVICES, et al.

 Defendants

Case No. 2021-00063JD

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

Magistrate Gary Peterson

DECISION
Case No. 2021-00063JD -2- DECISION

“[T]he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis 

for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record before the trial court which 

demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact on a material element of the 

nonmoving party’s claim.” Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292, 662 N.E.2d 264

(1996). To meet this initial burden, the moving party must be able to point to evidentiary 

materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id. at 292-293. 

{¶3} If the moving party meets its initial burden, the nonmoving party bears a 

reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which states, in part:

When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided 

in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or 

denials of the party’s pleadings, but the party’s response, by affidavit or as 

otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that 

there is a genuine issue for trial. If the party does not so respond, summary 

judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against the party.

Factual Background

{¶4} Plaintiffs Denise Guess and Roger Hinton bring claims for employment 

discrimination based on race, including wrongful termination, hostile work environment,

and retaliation, against Defendants Department of Youth Services (DYS) and Department 

of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) as a result of various incidents that led to their 

involuntary disability separation. Since 1991, Plaintiffs have been employed with DYS 

and have held various positions. Plaintiff Guess, an African American female, became 

an Infrastructure Specialist I for DYS in 2013. Plaintiff Hinton, an African American male,

became an Information Technologist 3 for DYS in 2016. At the time of their disability 

separation, Plaintiffs worked at the Information Technology (IT) Help Desk (the help desk) 

as a part of a services project that Defendants shared. Guess Depo., p. 40, 45, 61-62; 

Hinton Depo., p. 34-36, 60-61, 95, 100.
Case No. 2021-00063JD -3- DECISION

{¶5} The help desk was set up in an area occupied by DRC and Plaintiffs worked 

alongside other staff that were either employed by or contracted with DRC. Id. The help 

desk has nine staff members: six DRC employees, including Chris McCoy, Tim Fornal, 

Jimmy Long, Noral Cohen, Braeden Ramge, and Steve Rayburn; two DYS employees, 

Guess and Hinton; and one contractor, Tyler Thompson (formerly Tyler Gilchrist). Guess 

Depo., 136; Hinton Depo., p. 168; Cavendish Depo., p. 9-11. Thompson, a mixed-race 

female, is an employee of Sophisticated Systems who is contracted by DRC to staff the 

help desk. Thompson Depo., p. 8-9, 19. The five DRC help desk employees are white 

males. Hinton Depo., Ex. G; Guess Depo., p. 136, 146, 168. Although this shared project

required agency collaboration, Defendants maintained separate supervisory staff, human 

resources departments, and management policies and procedures. Guess Depo., p. 66-

68; Hinton Depo., p. 57-58, 101. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were subject to DYS policies and 

procedures. Id. Hinton Depo., p. 57-58, 101; Guess Depo, p. 66-68, 85-86. Likewise, 

the DRC employees were subject to DRC policies and procedures. Hinton Depo., p. 53-

58, 95-98, 100-101; Guess Depo., p. 85-86.

{¶6} Prior to being assigned to the help desk, Guess traveled between the

institutions, Central Office, and the regional offices to work on computers. Guess Depo., 

p. 42. In 2016, DYS investigated and disciplined Guess due to her sick leave balance.

Guess Depo., p. 14. Because Guess was aware that a male coworker had a similar sick 

leave balance and was not investigated or disciplined, she filed a complaint with the Ohio 

Civil Rights Commission (OCRC) on February 22, 2017. Complaint, ¶ 14-15; Guess 

Depo., p. 54-58. Ultimately, the written discipline was removed from Guess’ personnel 

file as the result of an agreement. Id. at 60. Thereafter, on February 27, 2017, DYS gave

“Guess a written coaching for ‘attendance and dependability’ issues.” Complaint, ¶ 16. 

{¶7} In July 2018, Guess was assigned to the help desk. Guess Depo., p. 47. On 

January 17, 2019, Linda Diroll, DRC’s IT Delivery Service Chief who served as the help 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -4- DECISION

desk manager, issued Guess a written coaching1for working 0.10 hours overtime without

prior authorization. Id. at 86-89; Hinton Depo., p. 44; Defendants’ Motion for Summary 

Judgment, p. 4. While Guess acknowledges she knew that working unauthorized 

overtime is a violation of DYS policy, she was not aware at the time that she had worked 

over forty hours in the week. Id. at 87-88. According to Guess, other white, male help 

desk staff—specifically, Steve, Tim, and Jimmy—told her that they had worked overtime 

before and were not disciplined for it. Id. at 90-92. However, Guess acknowledged that 

she is not familiar with DRC’s policies or employee handbook. Id. at 68. Additionally, 

Guess was aware of other DYS employees, who were not staffed at the help desk, who 

had worked overtime before and were not disciplined for it. Id. at 90-92. However, Guess 

acknowledged that she neither knew whether they had prior authorization for working 

overtime nor who was involved in these employees’ supervision as it related to 

timekeeping or discipline. Id. at 91-92. Guess filed a grievance regarding the written 

counseling, but it was not heard. Id. at 97. 

{¶8} In January 2019, Guess received a traffic violation for operating a vehicle 

under the influence (OVI). Id. at 101. In February 2019, Guess took leave on two 

occasions to attend court dates associated with the OVI. Id. at 100-101, 119-120. While 

she requested the days off in advance and used leave to do so, she did not provide a 

reason for taking the time off. Id. at 100-101. 

{¶9} Thereafter, Guess approached Diroll about needing future time off every 

Tuesday for a court-related matter. Id. at 97-99. Diroll refused to allow Guess time off 

without a court order. Id. at 97-98. Guess attempted to obtain a court order, but she was 

unable to do so. Id. at 99. Although it was not a court order, Guess showed Diroll

alternative documentation to demonstrate that she was in court. Id. at 97-98. When Diroll 

continued to deny her time off, Guess went to her DYS supervisors to whom she 

1 While Guess acknowledges that a written coaching is not formal discipline, she contends “it puts 

you on the discipline grid” and subsequent issues would result in formal discipline. Guess Depo., p. 80.
Case No. 2021-00063JD -5- DECISION

explained why she needed to take future leave. Id. at 105-108. Scott Welsh, DYS 

Network Supervisor, approved Guess’ request for future use of leave subject to 

stipulations regarding the timeframe in which Guess could have the leave, which was

written on a coaching form. Id. 

{¶10} Shortly after that, Guess was informed that she was being investigated for

reasons related to her OVI. Id. at 108-111. On March 19, 2019, Guess was provided 

formal notice that she needed to attend a pre-disciplinary meeting for failing to receive a 

manager’s approval for using leave to defend a court action. Id. at 115-120, Ex. O. While 

Guess does not dispute that the policy exists and that she violated it, she contends that 

she was not aware at the time that a policy required her to disclose why she was using 

her personal leave. Id. at 119-120. However, Guess recognizes that she signed off on 

having reviewed DYS’ policies. Id. at 120. Additionally, while Guess acknowledges she 

was adequately represented during the investigation, she believes Diroll initiated the 

investigation due to racial bias against her. Id. at 124-126.

{¶11} Prior to being assigned at the help desk, Hinton performed bargaining-unit 

work at various DYS locations. Hinton Depo., p. 43-45. On October 1, 2018, Hinton 

began his assigned duties at the help desk. Id. at 42. On October 18, 2018, Harvey 

Reed, DYS Director, sent an email to DYS IT employees explaining that employees were 

“required to punch in and/or out when leaving the building.” Id. at 78-79, Ex. D. On 

December 6, 2018, after returning from a lunch break, Hinton attempted to clock back in

using his work badge; however, Kronos, DYS’ time-keeping system, would not accept his 

badge. Id. at 64-65. Hinton manually went into Kronos and entered his time using the 

time editor feature. Id. at 66-67, 98. In February 2019, Hinton learned that there was an 

investigation relating to his unauthorized manual entry of time. Id. at 70-74. Thereafter, 

Hinton received formal notice of a pre-disciplinary hearing that was later cancelled. Id. at

213. Hinton contends that his white, male help desk coworkers—specifically, Chris, 

Steve, and Tim—have manually entered their time and were not investigated. Id. at 94-
Case No. 2021-00063JD -6- DECISION

99. However, Hinton acknowledges that he is not familiar with DRC policies with respect 

to time keeping, breaks, or taking leave. Id. at 58.

{¶12} In January 2019, Jeff Cavendish, a DRC Infrastructure Specialist 3 who also 

managed the help desk, received complaints from DRC help desk employees about

Plaintiffs’ workplace conduct. Cavendish Depo., p. 15-16, 36. Cavendish consulted Diroll 

concerning the complaints and she advised him to hold a meeting with the help desk 

employees about how to formally document grievances. Id. On February 26, 2019, 

Cavendish held a meeting with Chris, Noral, Braeden, Steven, Jimmy, and Tim (the 

meeting). Cavendish Depo., p. 31-33; Guess Depo., p. 133; Hinton Depo., p. 167-169.

During the meeting, Cavendish informed those in attendance that if they had workplace

complaints that they felt warranted further investigation, then they would need to complete 

an incident report. Cavendish Depo., p. 34.

{¶13} When Cavendish initiated the meeting, he called the help desk employees 

he saw present at their desks into the computer lab. Id. at 31-34. At the time, Thompson

was not at her desk. Cavendish Depo., p. 31-33; Guess Depo., p. 134; Hinton Depo., p. 

168. While Cavendish states he did not see Plaintiffs sitting at their desk at the time he 

announced the meeting, Plaintiffs contend they were at their desks and witnessed 

Cavendish gather Chris, Braeden, Steven, Noral, Jimmy, and Tim for the meeting. 

Cavendish Depo., p. 32-33; Guess Depo., p. 133; Hinton Depo., p. 167-169. While 

Cavendish felt it was important that as many of the help desk employees were present, 

the meeting was impromptu in nature because he had other meetings to attend that day. 

Cavendish Depo., p. 31-34, 36-37. Cavendish did not hold a subsequent meeting with 

Plaintiffs or Thompson. Id. at 36.

{¶14} According to Guess, Cavendish had only held one prior meeting when he 

became supervisor, which included all the help desk employees. Guess Depo., p. 134.

Plaintiffs do not have any personal knowledge of what prompted or occurred during the 

February 26, 2019 meeting. Guess Depo., p. 139, Hinton Depo., p. 173-175. At the time
Case No. 2021-00063JD -7- DECISION

of the meeting, Plaintiffs assumed it pertained to DRC matters because the meeting 

involved only DRC employees. Guess Depo., p. 133; Hinton Depo., p. 168-169. After 

the meeting, McCoy informed Thompson, who returned to her desk moments before the 

meeting concluded, that Cavendish instructed help desk employees to complete an 

incident report any time there was an issue with Guess or Hinton. Thompson Depo., p. 

25-26. Thompson did not perceive that she was excluded from the meeting because she 

was an ethnic minority; however, she believes that the meeting created a “war” where the

help desk employees “went back and forth filing reports on each other.” Id. at 27-30. 

{¶15} According to Guess, Thompson relayed to her the information that McCoy

told Thompson about the meeting. Guess Depo., p. 137-138. Guess then informed

Hinton of the same. Id. at 138. According to Plaintiffs, Wayne Patrick “Pat” Morgan, a 

DYS Labor Relations Officer, thereafter informed them that the other help desk 

employees had made statements against them and instructed them to make a written 

statement. Hinton Depo., p. 189-190; Guess Depo., p. 144-145; Morgan Depo., p. 8, 11. 

Thereafter, Plaintiffs submitted written statements. Hinton Depo., p. 187-190, Ex. G.; 

Guess Depo., p. 143-144, 154, Ex. G. Guess submitted one statement which alleged 

that the meeting created a hostile work environment because “all white males” were 

instructed to report incidents about her and Hinton, the only two black help desk 

employees, and the only additional minority coworker, Thompson, was also excluded. Id. 

Hinton submitted three statements which alleged that offensive discussions—such as

discussing the topics of “gun control, homophobia, abortion, lynching, and the use of 

profanity”—disrupted the workplace, the February 26, 2019 meeting created a hostile 

work environment, and that Diroll and Cavendish allowed the DRC help desk employees 

get away with theft of time. Id.

{¶16} On March 20, 2019, Guess informed Hinton that she was going to contact

the Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Guess Depo., p. 145-146. Guess explained

to EAP that she was feeling discriminated against, she was afraid she was going to be 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -8- DECISION

fired for issues related to her unauthorized overtime and use of leave, and she could not 

handle the workplace environment anymore. Id. Thereafter, Hinton contacted EAP and 

explained that he was regularly being investigated and harassed by his employer and he 

was under constant stress trying to get someone to listen to what is going on in the work 

environment. Hinton Depo., p. 23-25. Plaintiffs left work that same day following their 

discussion with EAP and have not returned. Hinton Depo., p. 23-25, 215; Guess Depo., 

p. 117, 145-146. Guess was involuntarily separated from employment due to disability 

on September 1, 2019. Guess Depo., p. 38. Hinton was involuntarily separated from 

employment due to disability on October 13, 2019. Hinton Depo., p. 16-17. Plaintiffs 

have not requested reinstatement. Guess Depo., p. 15; Hinton Depo., p. 17. 

Discussion

{¶17} Plaintiffs allege that, since being tasked to staff the help desk, Defendants

have subjected them to unwarranted discipline to which their white coworkers were not

subjected. Plaintiffs further assert that the February 26, 2019 meeting constituted racial 

harassment thereby creating a hostile work environment. Additionally, Plaintiff Guess

contends that DYS retaliated against her when it issued her a written coaching soon after 

she filed a complaint with OCRC in 2017. As a result, Plaintiffs bring claims for 

employment discrimination based on race, hostile work environment, and retaliation in 

violation of R.C. 4112. In its motion, Defendants argue that they are entitled to judgment

as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ disparate treatment and hostile work environment claims

because Plaintiffs cannot establish their prima facie case for either claim. Additionally, 

Defendants argue that Guess’ retaliation claim against DYS is time-barred.

Racial Discrimination

{¶18} R.C. 4112.02 provides, in pertinent part, that: “It shall be an unlawful 

discriminatory practice: (A) For any employer, because of the race * * * [or] national origin 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -9- DECISION

* * * of any person, * * * to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, 

terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any other matter directly or indirectly 

related to employment.” It is well-established that “discrimination actions under federal 

and state law each require the same analysis.” See Ray v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 2018-

Ohio-2163, 114 N.E.3d 297, ¶ 22 (10th Dist.), citing Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint 

Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 196, 421 N.E.2d 

128 (1981); Little Forest Med. Ctr. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 61 Ohio St.3d 607, 609-

610, 575 N.E.2d 1164 (1991). Accordingly, “Ohio courts may look to both federal and 

state courts’ statutory interpretations of both federal and state statutes when determining 

the rights of litigants under state discrimination laws.” Id. To prevail, Plaintiffs must

“present[] evidence, of any nature, to show that an employer more likely than not was 

motivated by discriminatory intent.” Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc., 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 664 

N.E.2d 1272 (1996), paragraph one of the syllabus; see also Kline v. Tennessee Valley 

Auth., 128 F.3d 337, 348-349 (6th Cir.1997) (“The direct evidence and circumstantial 

evidence paths are mutually exclusive; a plaintiff need only prove one or the other, not 

both. If a plaintiff can produce direct evidence of discrimination then the McDonnell 

Douglas-Burdine paradigm is of no consequence. Similarly, if a plaintiff attempts to prove 

its case using the McDonnell Douglas-Burdine paradigm, then the party is not required to 

introduce direct evidence of discrimination.”). Plaintiffs do not present any direct evidence 

of discriminatory intent. See Smith v. Superior Prod., LLC, 2014-Ohio-1961, 13 N.E.3d 

664, ¶ 16 (10th Dist.) (“Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence of any nature, which 

if believed, is sufficient by itself to show the employer more likely than not was motivated 

by discriminatory animus in its action.”)

{¶19} Absent direct evidence, Plaintiffs bear the initial burden of establishing a 

prima facie case of racial discrimination. Hall v. Ohio State Univ. College of Med., 10th 

Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-1068, 2012-Ohio-5036, ¶ 13-14. Under the disparate treatment

theory, Plaintiffs must show that “(1) he or she is a member of a protected class; (2) he 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -10- DECISION

or she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he or she was qualified for the position 

in question; and (4) the employer treated a non-protected, similarly-situated person more 

favorably.” Id. at ¶ 13-15. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot establish that 

Defendants treated a non-protected, similarly-situated person more favorably. The Court 

agrees. 

{¶20} To show that a coworker is “similarly-situated”, “the individuals with whom 

the plaintiff seeks to compare his/her treatment must have dealt with the same supervisor, 

have been subjected to the same standards and have engaged in the same conduct 

without such differentiating or mitigating circumstances that would distinguish their 

conduct or the employer’s treatment of them for it.” Brehm v. Macintosh Co., 10th Dist. 

Franklin No. 19AP-19, 2019-Ohio-5322, ¶ 39 (citations omitted). Plaintiffs allege

experiencing disparate treatment for separate issues each had related to their 

timekeeping and for being excluded from the February 26, 2019 meeting. 

{¶21} Hinton admits that he manually entered his time using Kronos’ time editor

feature without prior authorization. Hinton seeks to compare himself to that of several 

other help desk employees, specifically the white, male DRC employees. Assuming it is 

true that these coworkers manually entered their time without facing discipline, there is 

no evidence that they did so using the time editor feature or without prior authorization. 

Furthermore, these coworkers are all DRC employees and Hinton acknowledges that

DRC has separate disciplinary procedures of which he is unfamiliar. 

{¶22} Additionally, Guess admits to having worked overtime without prior 

authorization. Initially, Guess seeks to compare her behavior to that of several other help 

desk employees, specifically the white, male DRC employees. Assuming it is true that 

these coworkers had worked overtime without facing discipline, there is no evidence that 

they did so without prior authorization. Moreover, as already stated, these coworkers are 

all DRC employees, and Guess also acknowledges that DRC has separate disciplinary 

procedures of which she is unfamiliar. 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -11- DECISION

{¶23} Next, Guess seeks to compare herself to other DYS employees. However, 

there is no evidence regarding the specific circumstances under which these DYS 

employees were able to work overtime. Also, Guess acknowledges that these employees 

do not deal with the same supervisor as her. Moreover, in addition to being similarlysituated, these DYS employees must be non-protected individuals and the record is void 

of any evidence regarding their status as protected or non-protected individuals.

{¶24} Regarding Guess’ unauthorized use of leave for a court-related matter, she 

has not purported that a non-protected, similarly-situated person engaged in the same 

conduct and was treated more favorably. 

{¶25} Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that, because of their race, they were 

excluded from the February 26, 2019 meeting held with all of the white, male help desk 

employees. However, all the individuals who attended the meeting were DRC 

employees, while Plaintiffs are DYS employees. At the time the meeting took place, 

Plaintiffs assumed they were not included in the meeting because they were DYS 

employees. Additionally, Plaintiffs acknowledge that DRC and DYS employees have 

different supervisors and are governed by separate policies and procedures. 

{¶26} Assuming arguendo that Plaintiffs could establish their prima facie cases, 

they have failed to show how Defendants’ legitimate explanation for its conduct is pretext 

for discrimination. See Hall at ¶ 15 (“Once a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case,

the employer is required to set forth some legitimate, non-discriminatory basis for its

action. If the employer meets its burden, a plaintiff must be afforded an opportunity to

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons the employer

offered were not its true reasons for its actions but were a pretext for discrimination. The

ultimate burden of persuasion always remains with the plaintiff.”). “At the summary 

judgment stage, the issue is whether the plaintiff has produced evidence from which a 

jury could reasonably doubt the employer’s explanation.” Chen v. Dow Chem. Co., 580 

F.3d 394, 400, fn.4 (6th Cir.2009). A reason cannot be proved to be a pretext for 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -12- DECISION

discrimination unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrimination 

was the real reason. St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993). 

{¶27} Defendants investigated and initiated disciplinary measures against Plaintiffs

because they each violated DYS policies related to their respective conduct. Both Hinton

and Guess acknowledge that they engaged in the conduct for which they were

investigated. Moreover, neither Hinton nor Guess dispute that they violated a work rule.

{¶28} Additionally, Defendants conducted the February 26, 2019 meeting to

instruct help desk employees on how to formally report complaints, which was held in

response to Cavendish having received various informal complaints. While Cavendish

recognizes that those informal complaints were about Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs point to no

evidence that those informal complaints were based on race. Moreover, Plaintiffs provide

insufficient evidence to reasonably conclude that they were excluded from the meeting

because of their race. As stated above, all the employees who attended the meeting 

were DRC employees. At the time the meeting took place, Plaintiffs assumed they were 

not included in the meeting because they were not employed by DRC, not because of

race. 

{¶29} Moreover, Plaintiffs have no personal knowledge of what went on during the 

meeting. Plaintiffs did not form their opinion that the meeting was motivated by racial 

discrimination until after the fact. However, Plaintiffs’ only knowledge of the meeting 

comes through layers of hearsay, which show, at most, that the meeting concerned

complaints about Plaintiffs’ workplace conduct. Plaintiffs conclude that the meeting was 

racially motivated solely because only white males were in attendance. These conclusory

opinions are an insufficient basis on which the Court can find that Defendants’ legitimate

explanation is pretext for racial discrimination. See Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp., 964 F.2d 

577, 585 (6th Cir.1992).

{¶30} Although Plaintiffs bring their claims together in attempt to show a pattern of

discrimination, they provide insufficient evidence from which the Court could reasonably
Case No. 2021-00063JD -13- DECISION

doubt Defendants’ legitimate reasons for either initiating disciplinary measures or

conducting the meeting. In short, Plaintiffs do not meet their burden to demonstrate that

there is a genuine dispute of material fact. Therefore, Defendants are entitled to judgment

as a matter of law on Plaintiffs’ racial discrimination claim.

Hostile Work Environment

{¶31} To prevail on a claim for “hostile work environment created by racial 

harassment, the plaintiff must establish: (1) the employee was a member of the protected 

class; (2) the harassment of the employee was unwelcome; (3) the harassment 

complained of was based on race; (4) the harassment had the effect or purpose of 

unreasonably interfering with the employee’s work performance or of creating an 

intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment; and (5) respondent superior 

(employer) liability.” Chapa v. Genpak, LLC, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-466, 2015-

Ohio 897, ¶ 33. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants promoted a hostile work environment

created by allowing inappropriate discussions and language in the workplace and 

facilitating racially-exclusive meetings and disparate discipline of minority employees, 

which amounted to racial harassment. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs cannot show that 

the harassment of which they complain was based on race or that any alleged harassment 

was severe enough to create a hostile work environment. The Court agrees. 

{¶32} When determining whether the harassment created an intimidating, hostile 

or offensive work environment, a court must consider the totality of the circumstances, 

including “(1) the frequency of the discriminatory conduct; (2) its severity; (3) whether its 

physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether it 

unreasonably interferes with the employee’s work.” Chapa at ¶ 34. The purpose of these 

standards is to “filter out complaints which attack ‘the ordinary tribulations of the 

workplace, such as the sporadic use of abusive language, gender-related jokes, and 

occasional teasing.’” Id. at ¶ 35. 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -14- DECISION

{¶33} Hinton complains of workplace discussions about “gun control, homophobia, 

abortion, lynching, and the use of profanity.” Initially, the Court notes that Plaintiffs’ only 

evidence that these discussions amount to racial harassment is because they were made

by their white coworkers. Even assuming these discussions did occur as alleged, this is 

insufficient evidence to conclude that they were based on race. Moreover, based on the 

evidence presented, the Court concludes that such discussions are no more than the

ordinary tribulations of the workplace and are not severe enough to constitute

harassment. Any comments that could arguably amount to harassment did not happen 

with any notable frequency, pose any physically threat or humiliation to Plaintiffs, and did 

not unreasonably interfere with Plaintiffs’ work.

{¶34} Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that the February 26, 2019 meeting created a 

hostile work environment. While it appears that this meeting may have caused some 

disruption to the workplace environment, it was minor in nature. For instance, employees 

going back and forth making complaints about one another is not a severe enough 

disturbance to constitute harassment. Furthermore, although it is not disputed that this 

meeting had only the white, male employees in attendance, this scenario only occurred 

one time. Indeed, this was the second of two meetings that Cavendish held with help 

desk employees and Plaintiffs were included in the first. 

{¶35} Moreover, the Court again notes that Plaintiffs’ evidence that this meeting 

was based on race is that only white males were in attendance. However, Plaintiffs did 

not initially take offense to being excluded from the meeting—or believe such exclusion 

was based on race—at the time it occurred, as they assumed it was because they were 

from a separate agency than Cavendish and all those who attended the meeting. Even 

viewing the facts in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs, the Court finds that the 

circumstances were not severe enough to constitute harassment and there is insufficient 

evidence to conclude any alleged conduct was based on race. Therefore, there are no 
Case No. 2021-00063JD -15- DECISION

genuine issues of material fact and Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of 

law on Plaintiffs’ hostile work environment claim.

Retaliation

{¶36} Plaintiff Guess brings a claim of retaliation as the result of DYS issuing her

a written coaching on February 27, 2017, shortly after she filed a discrimination complaint 

with the OCRC. Generally, “civil actions against the state * * * shall be commenced no 

later than two years after the date of the accrual of the cause of action or within any 

shorter period that is applicable to similar suits between private parties.” R.C. 2743.16(A). 

Discrimination claims against the state under R.C. 4112 are subject to the two-year 

statute of limitations period set forth in R.C. 2743.16(A). Hostacky v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab.

& Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-349, 2021-Ohio-4464. In the absence of a factual 

dispute as to when a plaintiff’s cause of action accrues, the application of the statute of 

limitations is a question of law. Bell v. Ohio State Bd. of Trustees, 10th Dist. Franklin No.

06AP-1174, 2007-Ohio-2790, ¶ 21. Plaintiffs brought this action on February 4, 2021, 

more than two years after the alleged retaliatory conduct occurred. Consequently, the 

Court finds that Plaintiff Guess’ claim is time-barred, and Defendants are entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. 

Conclusion

{¶37} Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that there are no genuine issues

of material fact and that Defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN

Judge
[Cite as Hinton v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 2022-Ohio-1598.]

{¶38} A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, 

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in 

favor of Defendants. All previously scheduled events are VACATED. Court costs are 

assessed against Plaintiffs. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment 

and its date of entry upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN

Judge

Filed March 28, 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/12/22

ROGER HINTON, et al.

 Plaintiffs

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH 

SERVICES, et al.

 Defendants

Case No. 2021-00063JD

Judge Patrick E. Sheeran

Magistrate Gary Peterson

JUDGMENT ENTRY