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

- Ohio

- 1598.]

{¶1} Pursuant to L.C.C.R. 4 (D), D efe ndant s ’ moti o n for summary judgment is now
be fore th e C ourt for a non

- oral hearing . For the reasons state d below, the C ourt GRANTS
the motion

.

Standard of Review {¶2} Motions for summary judgment are reviewed under the standard set forth in C iv .R. 56(C), which states, in par t: Summ ary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the plead ings, depositions, answ e rs to interrogatories, written admissions, af fidavits,
tr anscripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in
t he action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any ma terial fact and that the moving pa rty is entitled to summ a ry judgment as a matter of law.
No evidence or stipulati on may be considered except as stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears fro m the

e vidence or stipulat ion, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that

reas o na ble minds can come to but one conclusion an d that concl usion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is
made
, that party being entitled t o ha ve the evidence or stipula tion construed most strongly in th e party’s favor. ROGER HINTON, et al.

Plaintiffs

v.

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH SERVICES, et al.

Defendant s Case No. 2021

- 00063JD
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran Magistrate Gary Peterson

DECISIONCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 2

- DECISION

“[T]he mo ving party bears the initial responsibility of informin g the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of t he record before the trial co u rt which
d emonstrate the abse nce of a genuine issue of material fact on a material ele m en t 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 mov in g party must be able to poi n t t o evide ntiary
materials of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C). Id . at 292

- 293

. {¶3} If th e m oving party meets its initial burden, the n onmoving par ty bears a reciprocal burden outlined in Civ.R. 56(E), which states, in part:
When a motion for summary judgmen t is made a nd supported as pro vided in this rule, an adverse par ty may not rest upon th e m ere allegations or denials of the party’s p leadings, bu t the party’s response, by affidavit or as otherwise provided in this rule, must s et forth specific facts showi n g t hat
the re is a genuine iss ue for trial. If the party does no t so respond, summary j u dg ment, if appropriate, shall be entered agai nst the part y.

Factual Background {¶4} Plaintiffs Denise Guess and Roger Hinton brin g claim s for employment
discrimina tion base d on race , including wrongful termination , hostile work environment
, and retaliation
, against Defen dant s Department of Youth Ser vices (DYS) and Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC) as a result of various incidents that led to their
in v olunt ary disability sepa ration. Since 1 991, P l a intiffs have been emplo yed with DYS
and have h eld va rious positions

. Plaintiff Guess, an African American female
, b ecame an In frast ructure S pecialist I for DYS in 2013

. Plaintiff Hinto n , an Afri can America n male
, b e came a n Information Technologis t 3 for DYS in 2016

. At the time of their disability
sepa ration, Plaintiffs work ed at the Information Techn ology (IT) Help Desk ( the h elp d esk)

a s a part of a services pro ject that Defendants shared

. Guess Depo. , p . 40 , 45
, 61

- 6 2;
H inton Depo., p. 34

- 36 , 60

- 61, 9 5, 100

.Case No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 3

- DECISION

{¶5} T he h elp d esk was set up in an area occupied by DRC and P laintiffs worked alongside other staff that were either employe d by o r c ontracted with DRC

. Id. The h elp
d e sk has nine staff m embers : six D RC empl o yees , including C hris McCoy, Tim Fornal, Jimmy Long, No ral Cohen , Braeden Ramge
, a nd S teve Rayburn ; two DY S emp loyees, Guess a nd Hinton ; and one contract or , Tyler Thompson (formerly Tyler Gilchrist)

. Guess Depo., 136; Hinton Depo., p . 168; C av end i sh Depo

. , p. 9

- 11

. Thompson , a mixed

- race female
, is an employee of Sophisticated Systems w ho is contracted by DRC to staff the help de sk

. T hompson Depo., p. 8

- 9 , 19. The five DRC he lp desk employees are white

ma les

. Hinton De po., Ex. G ; Guess Depo
., p

. 136
, 1 46 , 1 68

. Although this shared pro ject

re quired agency collabor ation
, D efendants maintained separa te superviso ry staff, human resources departments , a nd management policies and procedures . Guess Depo., p. 66

- 68 ; Hinton Depo., p. 57

- 58, 101. A ccor dingly, P lain t iffs were subject to D YS policies a nd procedures. Id. Hinton Depo., p. 57

- 58, 101 ; Guess Depo, p. 66

- 68, 85

- 86

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

- 58, 9 5

- 98, 100

- 101 ; Gues s Dep o., p. 85

- 8 6

. {¶6} Pri or to being assig ned to the h el p d es k
, Guess traveled between the institutions, Central Office, and the reg ional of fices to work on computers

. Guess De po., p. 42. In 2016
, DYS investigated and disciplined Guess due to her sick leave bala nce

. Guess Depo. , p. 14

. B ecause Guess was aware th at a male cow orker had a similar sick
leave balance and was not investigat ed or discipli ned, she filed a complaint w ith the Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCR C) on February 22, 201 7. Complaint, ¶ 1 4

- 15 ; Guess Depo.
, p. 5 4

- 58

. Ultimately, the w ritten disci pline was removed from Guess ’ person nel
file as the result of an agreement

. Id. at 60. There after, o n Fe bruary 27, 2017, D YS gave

“ Guess a written coa ching for ‘ attendance and dependability ’ issues

. ” C omplaint, ¶ 16

. {¶7} I n July 2018
, Guess was assigned to the h elp d esk. Guess Depo., p. 47. On
J an uary 17, 2019
, Linda Diro ll, DRC ’ s IT Delivery Service C hief who served a s the h elpCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 4

- DECISION

d esk m anager , issued Guess a written coaching 1 for working 0.10 hours overti me wi thou t prior authorization

. Id. at 8 6

- 89 ; Hinton De po., p. 44 ; Defendants ’ Motion for Summary Judgment, p. 4

. While Guess a cknowledges she kn ew that working unautho rized
overtime is a violat ion of DYS polic y, she was not aware at the time that she had worked

o ver fort y hours in th e week

. Id. at 87

- 88

. Ac cording to Guess, other white, male h el p d esk staff

— s pecifically
, Steve, Tim , and Jimmy

— t old her that t hey had worked over ti me before and were not disciplined for i t. Id. at 90

- 92

. Ho wev er, Gues s a ckn o wledg e d that
she is not familiar wi th DRC ’ s poli cies or employee handbook. Id. at 68. Additionally, Guess wa s aware of other DY S emp l oyees , who were not staffed at the h elp d esk
, who
had worked overtime before and were no t dis c ipline d fo r it. Id. at 90

- 92

. H owever , Guess
ack no w ledg ed that she neit her kn e w whether they had prior authorization for working
overtime nor who was involved in the se em ploy ees ’ supervision as it related to
timek eeping or discipline. Id

. at 9 1

- 92. Gu ess f iled a grie v ance regarding t h e wr it ten counseling , bu t it was not heard. Id. at 97. {¶8} In J anuary 2019, Guess received a traffic violation f or operati ng a vehicle
under the influence (OVI)

. Id

. at 101 . In F ebruary 2019, Guess took leave on two
occasi ons t o attend c o u rt dates associ a t ed wi th the O VI

. I d. at 10 0

- 101, 119

- 120. While she requested the d ays off in advance and used leave to do so, she did not provide a
reason for t aking the time off. Id. at 100

- 101. {¶9} There after, Guess approached Diroll ab out n eeding f u tur e time off ev e ry T ue sday for a court

- rela te d matter. Id. at 97

- 99. Diroll re fused 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 i t was not a c our t order, Gues s showe d Diroll

a ltern ative d oc umentation to demonstrate that she was in court. Id. at 97

- 98. W h en Diroll
continue d to deny h er t ime off, Guess went to her DYS supervis ors to whom she

1 While Gues s acknowle dges that a w ritten coac hing is not formal discipline, she contends “ it put s you on the discipline gri d ” and subsequent issues wou ld result in f ormal d iscipline. Guess Depo., p. 80.Case No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 5

- DECISION

expla ined why she needed to take future l eav e

. I d. a t 105

- 108. Scott Welsh, DYS Network Supervisor
, approved Guess ’ request for fut ure use of leav e subject to stipulation s regarding the timeframe in which Guess could have the leave , which was written on a coaching form

. Id. {¶10} Shortly a fter that
, Guess was i nformed that sh e was b eing investigat ed for

r easons re lated to her OV I

. Id. at 10 8

- 111

. O n March 19, 2019
, Guess was provided
formal notice that she needed to attend a pre

- di sciplin ary m eetin g fo r failing to rece ive a manager ’ s approval f or using leave to defend a cour t actio n. Id. at 115

- 120, Ex

. O

. While Guess does not dispute that t he polic y exists and that she violated it , she c ontends that
she was not aware at the time that a pol icy requir ed her to disclose why she was using her pers onal leave

. I d. at 1 19

- 120. H o wever , Guess recognizes that s he signed off on having reviewed DY S ’ policies

. Id. at 120

. Additionally
, w hile Gues s ackno wledges she

was adequa tely represented d uring the investi gation, she believes Diroll initiated the
inv estigation d u e to racial bias a gains t her

. Id. at 1 24

- 1 26

. {¶11} P ri or to being assigne d at the h elp d e sk, Hinton performed bargaining

- un it
work at various DYS locations

. Hinton Depo., p. 43

- 45. On October 1, 2018, Hinton beg an his ass igned du ties at the h elp d es k. I d

. at 42. O n Octo be r 18, 2 018, Harvey Reed, DYS Di rector , se nt an email to DYS IT employees explaining that employees were

“ required to pun ch in a nd/or out when leaving the building

. ” Id. at 7 8

- 79, Ex. D. On
Decem ber 6, 2 018
, a fter return in g from a lunc h br eak, Hinton atte mp ted t o clock back in

us ing 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 fea ture

. Id

. at 66

- 67
, 98

. In February 201 9, H i n ton l earn ed that the re was an in vestigation relating to his unauthorized manual entry of time. Id. at 70

- 74. Thereafter,
Hinton received f ormal notice of a pre

- disciplinary hearing that was later cancelled. Id. at
213. Hinton cont e nds that his white
, m ale h elp de sk coworke rs

— specifica lly, Ch ris, Ste ve , and Tim

— h ave manually entered their time and were not investigat ed. Id

. at 94

-Case No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 6

- DECISION

99. However, Hinton acknowledges that he is not familiar with DRC policies with re spect
to time ke epin g , brea ks , or taking l eave. Id. at 58. {¶12} In J anuary 2019, Jeff Cavendis h, a DRC In frast ructure Specialist 3 who also managed the h elp d e sk
, received complaints from DRC h elp d esk employees a bout
P la intiff s ’ workplace cond uct. Caven dish Depo., p . 15

- 16 , 36

. Cav endish con sulte d Dirol l

concer ning the complaints an d she advi sed him to hold a meeting with the hel p desk employees about how to formally document grievances

. Id

. On February 26, 20 19
, Ca vendish held a meeting with Chris, Nor al, Braeden, Ste ven, Jimmy
, a nd T im (the

me et i ng)

. Cavendish D epo ., p. 31

- 33 ; Guess Depo., p. 133 ; Hint on Depo., p. 167

- 169

. During the meeting , Ca vendish in formed those in a ttendance t hat if th ey had workplace complain ts that they felt warranted furt her investigation, then they would ne e d to c om pl ete

a n i ncident report. Ca vendish Depo., p. 3 4. {¶13} W hen Cavendi sh initiated the meeting, he calle d th e help desk employees he saw present at the ir desks into the computer lab. Id. at 31

- 34. At the time, Thompson
was not at her desk. Cavendis h Depo

. , p. 3 1

- 33 ; Guess Depo., p. 13 4 ; Hint on Depo., p.
16 8

. While C avendish states he did not see P laintiffs sitting at their desk at th e time he
announced the meeti ng, P laintiff s contend t hey were at their desk s and wit nessed C aven dish gather C h ris
, Br a eden, S t ev en , Nor al
, Jimmy
, a nd Tim for the meeting

. Cavendish D epo ., p. 3 2

- 33 ; Guess Depo., p. 133 ; Hint on Depo., p. 167

- 169

. While Cavend ish felt it was important that as many of the help desk employ ees were present,
the meeting was impromptu in na ture because h e h ad o ther meetings to a ttend th at day. Cavendish Dep o., p

. 31

- 3 4, 36

- 37

. Cavendish did not hold a subsequent meeting with
Plaintiffs or Thompson

. I d

. at 36. {¶14} Ac cording to Guess, Cavendish had only held one prior meeting when he
became sup ervi s or , which i n clud ed all the help de sk emp lo yees

. Guess Depo

. , p. 134

. Plaint i ffs do not have any personal knowledge of what pro mpt ed or occur red during th e February 26, 2019 meeting. Gue ss D epo., p. 139, Hinton Depo., p. 173

- 175. At the timeCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 7

- DECISION

of the mee t ing
, P lai nt i ffs assumed it pertained to DR C matters b ecause the meeting involved only DRC employees

. Guess Depo., p. 133 ; Hint on Depo., p. 16 8

- 169

. After the meeting, McCoy informed T homp son , who returned to her desk moments before the meeting conclu ded
, that Cav en di sh instructed help desk employ ees to complete a n i nc ident report a ny time there was an issue with Guess or Hinton. Thom pson Depo., p.
25

- 26

. Thompson did not perceive that sh e was excluded from the meeting because she
was an ethnic minor ity ; h o wever, s he be lieve s that the meeting cre ated a “ war ” where the help desk emplo yees “ went back and forth filing reports on ea ch other. ” Id. at 27

- 30

. {¶15} According to Guess, Thompson rela yed to her the information that McCoy
told Thompson about the mee ti n g. Guess D epo ., p. 137

- 138. G uess then inf ormed
Hin ton of the sa me. I d. at 13 8. According to Plaintiffs
, Wayne Pat rick “ Pat ” Morgan, a DYS L abor Relation s Officer
, the reafter informed them tha t the other hel p desk employees had made statements ag ain s t them and in str uc ted them to make a w rit ten

s tatement. Hinton Depo. , p. 189

- 190 ; Guess Depo., p. 144

- 145 ; Morgan Depo., p. 8, 11

. Thereafter
, Plaintiffs s ubmitted written statements

. Hinton Depo., p. 187

- 190
, E x

. G. ; Guess Depo., p. 143

- 144, 154, Ex. G

. Guess sub mi tte d on e statement which alleged
that the meeting creat ed a hostile work environment because “ all white males ” were instructed to report incidents about her and Hinton
, the only two b lack help desk employees , and the only additional minority co w orker , Th om pso n, was also e xc luded

. Id.
Hi n ton submitted three s tatements which alleged that offen sive discussion s

— such as discussing the topics of “ gun control, homophobia, abortion, lynching, an d the use of profan ity ”

— disrupted the workplace, the Fe br u ary 26, 2 01 9 m ee ting created a hostile
work environment, and that Diroll and Cavendish allowed the DRC help desk emplo yees get away with theft of time. Id

. {¶16} O n March 20, 20 19
, Guess informed Hinton that she was going to contact the Employee Assistanc e P r o gram (EAP )

. Gu e ss Depo., p. 14 5

- 146. Guess explai ned
to EAP that she was feeling discriminat ed against
, she was afraid she was going to beCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 8

- DECISION

fired for issues re lated to her unauthorized over time a nd use of leave
, and she could not
handle the workplace en v i ronment a ny more

. Id. Thereafter, Hinton cont acted EAP and explaine d that he was regularly be in g 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 w ork
environment

. H i nt o n Depo., p. 23

- 2 5

. Plain tiff s le ft work that s ame day following thei r discuss ion with EAP and have not returned

. Hinton Depo., p. 23

- 25 , 215 ; Guess De po.,
p. 117, 145

- 146. Guess was involuntarily separat ed from employmen t due to di sability

on Sep tember 1 , 2019. G uess De po., p. 38

. Hinton was involun tarily separat ed from employmen t due to di sability on O ctober 13, 2019. Hinton Depo., p. 16

- 17. Plaintiffs
have not request ed re instatement. Guess Depo., p. 15; Hinton Depo., p. 17.

Discussion {¶17} Pl aintif f s alleg e th at , s ince be i ng tasked to staff the help desk
, D efendant s ha ve subjected them to unwarranted discipline to which their white cowork ers were not subjected

. Plaintiff s further assert that the February 26, 2019 m eeting constituted racial
harassme n t thereb y c reati ng a host i le work environment

. Addi tional ly, P laintiff G u ess contends that DYS re taliat ed against her wh en it issued her a written coaching soon after she filed a complaint with OCRC in 2017. A s a result, P laintiff s bring claims for employ m ent di s cr imi na tion base d on race , hostile work en vir onment , and re taliatio n in
violation of R.C. 4 112

. In its motion
, Defendant s argue that they are entitled to judgment

as a matter of law on P lain tiff s ’ dis parate treatment and h ostile work en vironment c l aim s b e ca use P laintiffs cannot establish their prima facie case for either claim. Additionally,
D efe ndants ar gue that Guess ’ re taliation claim against DYS is time

- barred.

Racial Discrimination {¶18} R .C. 4112.02 provides, in pertinent part, that: “ It shall b e an u n l a wful
d iscrimina to ry practice: (A) For any em ployer , becaus e of the race * * * [or] national originCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 9

- DECISION

* * * of any perso n, * * * to d iscriminate against t hat person with r espect to hire, tenure,
te rms, con ditions, o r privileges of employment
, or any o ther m a t te r di rectly or indirectly related to employ ment. ” It is w ell

- est a b lished that “ discrimination actions under feder al
and state law each require the s am e analysis. ” See Ray v. Ohio Dept. of Health
, 2018

- Ohio

- 2163, 114 N .E.3d 297, ¶ 2 2 (10 th D ist. ) , citi n g Plumb ers & Ste amfitters Joint Apprenticeshi

p Commt. v. Ohio Ci v. Right s Comm. , 66 Ohio St.2d 192, 196, 421 N.E.2d
128 (1981); Li ttle Fo rest Med. Ctr. v. Oh io Civ. Rights Comm. , 61 Ohio St.3d 607, 609

- 6 10, 575 N.E.2 d 116 4 (19 91). Accordi ngly, “ Oh i o cour t s may l ook t o bo th federal and
state courts ’ statutory interpret ati ons o f both federal and state statutes when determining the rights of litigants unde r stat e discrimin ation laws. ” Id. To prevail
, P laintiff s must

“ p resent [] e vidence , of any natur e , to s h o w that an emp loy er more likely than not was

m otivated by discrimi n atory i n tent. ” Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc. , 75 Ohio St.3d 578
, 664
N.E.2d 1272 (1996)
, para graph one of the syll abus ; see also Kline v. T ennessee Val

ley
Auth.
, 128 F.3d 337 , 348

- 34 9 (6 th C i r.1997 ) ( “ T he di rect evidence and cir cumstant ial evidence paths ar e mutually exclusive; a plaintiff need only prove one or the other, not
both. If a plaintiff can produce direct evidence of discrimination then the M cDonnell
D ouglas

- Burdine paradi g m is o f no con sequence. Similarly, if a plai ntiff at tempts to prove its c ase using the McDonnell Douglas

- Bu rdine paradigm, then the party is not required to
introduce direct evidence of discrimination. ” ). Plainti ffs do not present any direct evidence
of d iscri m i natory intent. S ee S mi t h v. Superior Prod

. , LLC
, 2014

- Ohio

- 1961, 13 N.E. 3d 664, ¶ 16 (10 th D ist.) ( “ Direct evidence of discrimination is evidence o f any nature, which if believed, is sufficient by itself to show the employer more likely than not w as mot i v a ted
b y discrimi natory animus in its action. ” ) {¶19} Absent direct evide nce, P laintiff s bear the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of racial discrimination

. Hall v. Ohio State Univ. College of Med
., 1 0th
Dist. Franklin No. 11 A P

- 1068, 20 1 2

- Ohio

- 5 036, ¶ 13

- 1 4

. U n der the disparate treatment theory
, P laintiff s mu s t show that “ (1) he or she is a member of a protected c lass; (2) heCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 10

- DECISION

or she suffered an adverse employment action; (3) he o r she was qualified for the position in question; and (4) t he emp l o yer tr eated a non

- protec ted, similar l y - situat ed person more
favora b ly. ” Id. at ¶ 13

- 15

. Defenda nt s argue that P laintiffs cannot establish that
D efendant s treated a non

- pro tected, similarly

- situated person more favor ably. The C ourt
agrees. {¶20} To s how th a t a cow orker is “ similarly

- sit uat ed ”
, “ the individuals with whom
th e pla intiff seeks to compare hi s/ her treatment must have dealt with the same supervisor, have been subject ed to the same standards and have eng aged in the same con duct
without such d iffere n t iating or mitigating cir cumstances that w ould distinguish t heir

co n d uct or the employer ’ s treatme nt of them for it. ” Breh m v. Macintosh Co., 1 0th Dist.
Franklin No. 19 AP

- 19, 2019

- Ohio

- 5322 , ¶ 39 (citations omitted )

. Pla in tiff s allege experiencin g dispa r a te tre atment for separate i ssues each had related to their
time keep in g and for being ex clu ded from the Feb ruary 26, 2 019 meeting

. {¶21} Hinton admits that he manually enter ed his time using Kronos ’ time editor
feature without prior authorization. Hin t on see k s to co mpare himself to that of several
othe r help desk emplo y ees, s pec ifically the white , male DRC employees. Assuming it i s true that the se coworkers manually entered their time without fa cing discipline , there is
no evidence that they did so us i ng the t ime ed itor feature or without prior authori zation.
Furt hermore
, th ese coworkers are all DRC employ ees and H inton acknowledges that DRC ha s separate discipli nary p ro cedures of which he is unfamiliar. {¶22} Additi onally, Guess admits to having worked o v er time w ithout prior
authorization. Initially
, Gues s seek s to compare her b eha vior to that of several other help desk emplo y ees, specifically the white , male DRC employees. Assuming it i s true that
the se coworkers had worked overtim e without facing disci p line
, t h ere is no evidence that they did so without prior authorization

. Mo reo ver, as a lready stated
, these coworkers are all DRC employees
, and Guess also acknowledges that DRC ha s separate discipli nary
p ro cedures of which she is unfamiliar.Case No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 11

- DECISION

{¶23} Next, Gues s seek s to com pare herself to o ther D YS em ployees . H owever, the re is no evid enc e regarding the specific circ umstances under which the se DYS employees were able to work overtime

. A ls o , Guess acknowledges that these employees
do not deal with the same supe r visor a s her

. More over, i n addition to being simila rly

situat ed, these DY S emp loyees must be non

- protected i n dividuals and the record is void of any evidence regarding their status as protec ted or non

- protected individuals. {¶24} Regard ing Guess ’ unauthorized u se of l eave f or a court

- related matter , she has not p urpo rted that a non
- pro tected
, similar ly

- situat ed person e ngaged in the same
conduct a nd was treated more favor ably

. {¶25} A dditi onally
, P laintiffs contend that, because of their race
, the y were excluded fr o m the F ebruar y 2 6, 2019 meeting hel d with all of the white, ma le hel p desk

e mploye e s. How ever, all the individ uals who attended the meeting were DRC employees , while P laintiffs are DYS emp loyees. At the time the meeti ng took place,
P laintiffs as sumed th e y wer e not in c luded in the me eting because they were D YS employees. Additio nally, P laintiffs ackno wledge that DRC and DYS employees have
different su pervisors and are governed by separate poli cies and procedures. {¶26} A ssu ming arguendo that P laintiff s could e stabl i s h thei r prima fac ie case s , they have failed to show how D efen dant s ’ l egiti m ate explanation for its condu ct is pre text for discriminat ion. See Hall at ¶ 15 ( “ Once a plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case, the e mployer is required to set forth so m e leg i t imate, non
- discriminatory basis for its
action. If the employer meets its bu rden, a plaintiff must be aff orded an opportunity to
prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons the employer
of fered were not its true reasons for its a c t ions b ut were a pretext for discrimination. The
ultimate burden of per suasio n always remains wit h the pla intiff

. ” ). “ At th e summary ju dgment s t age, the issue is whether the plaintiff has produced evidence from wh ich a jury could reasonably doubt t he em p l oyer ’ s explanation. ” Chen v. Dow Chem. Co. , 580 F.3d 394, 4 00
, f n.4 (6 th Cir

. 2009). A re ason cannot be p roved to be a pret ex t forCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 12

- DECISION

disc riminati on unless it is shown both that the reason was false, and that discrim ination
was the real reason. St. M ary’s H onor C tr. v. Hic k s, 509 U.S. 502, 515 (1993). {¶27} Defendant s in vestigated and in iti ated disciplinary measure s against Plaintiffs
because they each violate d DY S polic ies related to their respective conduct

. Both Hinton

a nd Guess ackno w ledge tha t they engag e d in th e c onduct for which they were investigated

. Moreover, n eith er Hin ton nor Guess dispute that th ey violated a work rule. {¶28} Additionally, D efendant s conduct ed the February 26, 2019 meeting t o inst ruct hel p desk employees on how to formall y report com p l aints, which was held in
respon se to C avendish having received var ious i nformal complaint s

. While Ca vendish recognizes that those informal complain ts were about P laintiffs
, P laintiffs point to no evidence tha t those informal complaints were b as ed on rac e

. More over , P laintiff s provide
insufficient evidence t o reasonably concl ude that they were excluded f rom the meeting
because of their race. A s stated a bove, all the employees who attended the meeting

were DRC employees

. At the time the meet i ng took pla c e , P lai ntiffs as sumed they were not inc luded in the me eting because t he y were not employ ed by DRC , not because of

race. {¶29} Moreover
, P laintiffs have no personal knowledge of what went on during the meeting. Plai ntiff s did not form their opin io n that the me e t ing wa s motiv ated by racial
discrimination until after the fact. Howeve r, P lainti ffs ’ only knowledge of the meeting

comes through layers of hearsa y, which show
, at most, that the meeting concerned complaint s about P laintiffs ’ workplace conduct

. Plainti f f s conc lude that the meeting was
racia lly motiv at ed solely because only white male s were in att endanc e. These conclusory opi nions are a n insufficient basis on which the C ourt can find that D efendant s ’ legitimate
exp l ana tion is pretex t f or r ac i al discrimin a t ion. See Mitchell v. Toledo Hosp. , 964 F.2d 577, 585 (6th Cir .1992)

. {¶30} Alth ough P l aintiff s bring t heir claims together in attempt to show a pattern of
discrimination
, the y p rovide insufficient evidence from which the C ourt could reasonablyCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 13

- DECISION

do u bt D efe ndant s ’ legit ima te reasons for either in itiating disciplinary measure s or

c onduc ting the me eting

. In sh ort, P laintiff s do not meet their burden to demonstrate that
there is a gen uine dispute of mate rial fact

. T herefore, D efendants are entitled to judg m ent

as a matter of law on P laintiff s ’ racial discrimination claim.

Hostile Work Environment {¶31} To prevail on a claim for “ hostil e work environmen t created b y racial
har assment, the p laintiff must establish : (1) the employee was a member of the protected

c l ass; (2 ) t he ha rassment of the employee was un welcome; (3) the har assment

co mplain ed of was based on race; (4) the har a ssment had the effect or purpose of unreasonably interfering with the employee ’ s work performance or of creat ing an
intimi dating , hostil e , or of f en sive work environment; and (5) respondent superior (empl oyer) liab ility. ” Chapa v. Genp ak , LLC , 1 0 th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP

- 466, 2015

- Ohio 897, ¶ 33. P laintiffs contend that D efendants promoted a hostile work environment
created by allowing i n appropr i at e dis cussi ons and language in the workplace and facilitating racia lly

- ex clusive meetings and disparat e discipline of min ority employees
, which amounted to racial harassment. Def endant s ar gue t hat P laintiffs cannot show that
the harassment of wh i c h they co mplai n was based on race or that any alleged ha rass ment

was sev ere enoug h t o create a ho stile work en vironment

. The C ourt agrees

. {¶32} W hen determining whether th e harassment created an intimidating , hostile
or offensive work env ironment, a c our t must co n sid er t he totality of the circumstances
, including “ ( 1) the frequenc y of the discriminat ory conduct ; (2) its severity; (3) whether its physically threatening or humiliating , or a mere offensive utterance; and (4) whether it unreasonably inter fere s with th e em ploy ee ’ s work. ” C hapa at ¶ 34. The purpose of these
standards is to “ filter out comp laints which attack ‘ the ordin ary tribulations of the workplace, su ch as the sporadic use of abusive language, gen der

- re lated jokes, and

oc casional teasing. ’ ” Id. at ¶ 35

.Case No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 14

- DECISION

{¶33} Hinton c omplains o f wor kplace discussions about “ gun cont rol, homo phobia,

a bor tion , lynching, a nd the use of profanity

. ” In iti ally , the C ourt notes that P laintiffs ’ only
evidence that thes e discussions amo unt to racial har assment is becau s e they w e re made
b y their white coworkers. Even assuming these discussion s did occ ur as alleged, t his is
insuf f icient evidence to conclude that they were based on race. More over, b ased on the evidence presented, t he C ourt con cludes that such discussion s are no m o re than the ordinary tribu lations of the workplace and are not s evere enou gh to con stitute
harassment

. A ny comments that could argu ably amount t o harassment did not happen with any notable frequency
, pose any physically threat or humi liation to P lain tiff s , a nd d id
not unreasonably in terfere with P laintiffs ’ work

. {¶34} Additio nall y, P laintiffs co ntend that th e February 26, 2019 meeting cr eated a
hostil e work environment

. While it appears that th is meeting may have caused some di sruption to the work p lace env i ronm ent , it was minor in nature . F or instance, employees going back a nd f orth making comp lain ts about one another is not a severe en ough
disturbance to constitute harassment. Furthermore, althoug h it is not disputed that this meeting had only t h e white
, ma le em ployees in attendance
, this scenario only occurred
one time. I nde ed, t his was the second of tw o meetings that Cavendish held with help desk employees and P laintiffs were included in the first

. {¶35} Moreover, the C ourt again notes that P laint i ffs ’ evi d ence th at t his meeting
was based on race is that only white males w er e in atte ndance

. However, P lai ntiffs did
not init ially take offense to be ing excluded from the meeting

— o r believe s uch exclusion
was based on race

— a t the time it occurred , a s they assum e d it wa s bec a use they were from a separate a gency than Cavendish an d al l those who atten ded th e meet ing. Even

v iewing the facts in a light most favor able to P laintiffs , the C ourt finds that the
circumstances were not se ver e enough to constitu t e harassmen t and th ere is in suffic ient
evidence to conclude any alleged conduct wa s based on race

. Therefore, th ere are noCase No. 2021

- 0 0063JD

- 15

- DECISION

genuine issues of material fact and D efendant s are entitled to judgment as a matter of
law on P laintiff s ’ hostile work environment c laim.

Reta l iati on {¶36} Plaintiff Guess brings a claim of re taliation as the result of DY S issu ing her

a written co aching on Februa ry 27, 2017
, shortly after she file d a discrimination complaint with the O CRC. Gene rally, “civil actions against the state * * * s hall be c o mmen ced no later than two years after the date of the accrual o f the c ause of action or within any shorter period t ha t is applicable to similar suits between private parties. ” R .C. 2743.16(A).
Discri min ation claims against the state under R.C. 4 112 are s u bjec t t o the two

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

. & Corr. , 1 0th Dist. Franklin No. 2 1AP

- 349, 2021

- Ohio

- 4464

. In the absence of a factual dispute as to when a plaintiff’s cause of action ac c rues , t he application of the statute of limitations is a question of l aw. Bell v. Ohio State Bd. of Trustees
, 10th Di st. Franklin No.
06AP

- 1174, 2007

- Ohio

- 2790
, ¶ 21. Plaintiff s brought this action on February 4 , 202 1
, more than two years afte r the alle g ed r eta liatory conduct occurred

. Consequently
, the C ourt finds that Pl ain tiff G u ess ’ c laim is time

- barred, and D efen da nts are entitled to judgmen t as a matter of law. C oncl usion {¶37} Based upon the for egoing
, the C ourt finds that there are no gen u ine issues
of ma t erial fact and that D efenda nts are entitled to judgment as a matt er 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 D efendant s ’ motion for

summ ary judgment. For the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith,
D efendant s ’ mo tion f or summary judgment is GRANTED and judgment is rendered in
favor of D efe ndant s . All previously scheduled events are VACATED. Court costs are

assesse d against Plaintiff s . The clerk shall serve u pon all parties notice of this judgment

a nd its dat e o f en tr y upon the journal.

PATRICK E. SHEERAN Judge Fil ed 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 C ase No. 20 21

- 0006 3J D
Judge Patrick E. Sheeran Magistrate Gary Peterson

JUDGMENT ENTRY