[Cite as Coomer v. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities , 2022

- Ohio

- 1819.]

{¶1} Before the Court is Plaintiff’s March 11, 2022 motion in which she reque s ts

the C ourt a w ard her supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs associated with Defendant ’ s

appeal of this action and post

- judgment interest

. For the reasons stated below, the Court

GRANTS , in part, and DENIES, in part

, Plaintiff’s motion.

Fact s

{¶2} Plainti ff assert ed that Defendant was liable to her for disability discri mi nation

and failure to accomm odate pursuant to state and federal law

. After finding that Plaintiff

proved her claims , t h e Court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff

. February 1, 2021

I nt er im De cision. Th e Court found that P laintiff was entitled to r ei nsta t ement and a

monetary award of $107,862.50 , including $95,440.38 in back pay, $2,422.12 in lost

benefits , and $10, 000 in emotional distress

. Id. Thereafter, the Court conditionally

awa r d ed Plai ntiff a dditional lost wages at $ 754. 90 per week from “ Oc tober 25, 2020 until

the earlier of : 1) the date her reinst atement is e ffective , or 2) March 31, 2021 ”

, provided

that “ P laintiff provid [ed] the Court with evidence that she was medically able t o work with

th e revised schedule on those days * * *. ” 1 March 10, 2021 E n try

. Addit ionally

, th e Court

awarded Plaintiff $12 9

, 052. 55 in attorneys ’ fees and co sts

. Id.

1 Plaintiff filed supplemental evidence pursuant to this Court ’s conditional award

. See Plaintiff ’ s A pril 13, 2 021

Noti ce

. Upon consideration of the same , the Court finds that Plaintif f is entit led to additiona l lost wages as provided for

in its March 1 0, 2 021 entry

. See i d. , Ex. A

, S upplemental Affidavit of Michael Saribalas, D. O. LAURA COOMER

Plaintiff

v.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR OHIOANS WITH

DISABILITIES

Defendant Case No. 2019

- 00086JD

Judge Dale A. Crawford

JUDGMENT ENTRYCase No. 2019

- 000 86JD

- 2

- JUDGMENT ENTRY

{¶3} Defendant filed an appeal of th e Court ’ s decision, which was then affirmed

.

Coom er v. O p

port unit ies for Ohioans with Disabilities , 1 0th Dist. Franklin No. 21 AP

- 158,

2022

- O hio

- 387

. To litigate the appeal on Plaintiff ’ s b ehalf

, A ttorney Carrie Dyer

,

per formed 58 additional hours of work, charge d at a rate of $335 per hour. Affidavit of

C ar rie Dye r

, ¶ 7

- 8, Ex. B

- 1

. Additionally, Attorney Greg Mansell performed 11 additional

hours of work, charged a t a rate of $4 00 per hour. Affidavit of Gre g Mansell, ¶ 7

- 9

, Ex. A

1

. These rates are within the reasonable mark et value for services provide d by a tto rneys

in central Ohio with s i milar experience, knowledge, and skill

. A ffidavit of Rachel Sabo

Fr i e dm an n , ¶ 10

- 13

. Plaintiff also incurre d $35 in supplemental c osts associated with t he

oral argument , inc luding $ 25 for printing and copying and $10 f or pa rk ing

. Mans el l Af f.

,

¶ 10

, Ex. A

- 2. The addi tional hours and cos ts spent litigating the appeal are reasonable

and typical for similar employment law litigatio n. Sabo Fr i e dman n Aff., ¶ 14

- 15.

Additionally

, the Ohio Verified In terest Rates for 202 1 an d 20 2 2 are 3% pe r annum.

Plain ti ff La ura Coomer ’ s Motion for Suppleme ntal Attorneys ’ Fees & Costs Associated

with the Appeal & Motion for Post

- Judgment Interest, Ex. D

.

Discussion

{¶4} Initial ly, the Court notes that Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s re quest for

suppleme ntal attorneys’ fe es and costs associated with the appeal. Upon review, the

Cour t finds that the requested awar d is reasonable and Plaintiff is entitled to supplemental

attorneys’ fees and costs . Accordingly, the Court awards Pla inti ff $23,86 5.00 in

supp lemental attorneys’ fees a nd costs associated with th e a ppeal.

{¶5} Additio nally, P laintiff seeks post

- judgment interest on th e total award at the

appli cable statu tory rat e with continually accruing int erest until the judgment is paid

.

Gene rally , costs do n o t include fees that are n ot statutorily authorized. State ex rel. Toth

v. Industrial Com m. , 80 Ohio St.3d 360, 363, 686 N.E .2d 514 (1997). Plaintiff argues that

R.C. 2743.18(B) a uthorizes post

- judg men t interes t on the full award

. S ee, e.g., Warden

v. O h io Dept. of Natural Resou rces , Ct. of Cl. No. 2011

- 01 232, 2013

- Ohio

- 1512, ¶ 18Case No. 2019

- 000 86JD

- 3

- JUDGMENT ENTRY

(“Plaintiff also seeks post

- judgment interest on the award of back pay at the current

statutory rate of 3% per annum pur suant to R.C . 2743.18(B). In its po st

- t rial briefs,

defe n dant acknowledges that th e statute allows for the sam e. Accordingly, post

- judgment

interest shall be allowed on plaintiff[’ ]s back pay award in accordance with R.C.

2743.18(B).”)

. However, Defendan t argues tha t Plaintiff’s reques t f or p ost

- j udgment

inte re st should be denied becau se Plaintiff ’s employment discrimination claims sound in

tort and such civil actions “based on tortious conduct” are not entitled to post

- judgment

interest. See R.C. 2743(B)(2 ).

{¶6} R.C. 2743.18(B)(2 ) provides

, in rel e vant part:

If th e court of claims rend ers jud gment * * * aga ins t the state in a civil action

* * *

, the civil action is not based on tortious conduct

, and the claimant in the

court of claims prevails in any appeal of the judgment * * *, postjudgme nt

i ntere st shall be p aid with respect to the j udgment * * * at the same rate that

is applicable to judgments rendered against private parties * * * and for ea ch

day between the date of entry of t he judgment * * * and the date of payment

of the j udgment * * *

.

A “ tort ” is a “ ci v il wrong

, other than breach of contrac t, for which the court will provide a

remedy in the form of an actio n for damages

. ” Keeton

, et al.

, Prosser a nd Keeton on the

Law o f Torts

, Section 2 (1984) ; see also Black ’ s Law Dictionary 12 46 ( Abrid ge d 8th

E d

. 200 5 ). Ac cordingly

, the Court finds that Plainti ff ’ s e mploy ment discrimin ation claims

are civil ca use s of action based on tortious con duct

. See Kirk v. Shaw Envtl., Inc.

,

N.D. Ohi o No. 10:09

- cv

- 1405, 2010 U .S. Dist. LEXIS 51332

, 14 ( Ma y 25

, 201 0)

,

citing Gre ele

y v. Miami Valley M

aintenance Co ntractor

s

, 49 Ohio St. 3d 228, 551 N.E.2d

981 (1990 ) ; Reilly v. Alcan Aluminum Cor p

., 6th Cir. No. 98

- 3566

, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS

8739 ( May 5, 1999 ) ; Hoyt v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. C o

., 1 0th Dist. Fra nkli n No. 04AP

941

, 200 5

- O h io

- 6367 ( “Ohio tre ats clai ms fo r wrong ful dischar g e in viol ation of public

p olicy and employment dis crimination as tort claims. ” ) ; see also Dugger v. HoneywellCase No. 2019

- 000 86JD

- 4

- JUDGMENT ENTRY

In ternatl. Inc.

, N. D. O hio No. 1:21

- cv

- 00892, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24 0089

, 13 ( Dec. 16,

2021 ) ( Plaintiff alleg ed t hat Defend ant “ committed a tor t

— i. e.

, employment discrimin ation

and re taliation

— * * * and that [Plaintiff ] su ffered the tor tious in jury

— i. e

. , lost commission

wages and termination of employ ment

— * * *

. ” )

. Furt herm ore, the Court find s t hat the

plain l anguage of R. C. 2743.18(B)(2) sp ecifically pre cludes post

- appeal recover y o f post

j udgment interest in tort actions

.

{¶7} Whi le this Cour t ha s previously granted post

- judg ment interest pursuant to

R.C. 2743 .18 (B) (2)

, it did so i n a brea ch of contr act action

. See Wood Electric

, Inc. v.

Ohio Facilities Const

ruction Commission

, Ct. of. Cl. No. 2014

- 00987

, 2017

- Ohio

- 7524

.

Altern atively, the Court has on c e previously granted post

- jud gment interest in an

employme nt law act io n pri or t o any appeal an d when th e parties agreed to such an award

.

Warden at ¶ 1 8 ; see als o R.C. 2743 .18 (B)(1)

. Neither c ase applies here. Under the

circumstances present in this case

, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to post

appeal post

- judgm ent intere s t

.

Concl usion

{¶8} F or the re asons stated above, the Court GRANTS , in part, and DENIES, in

part, Plaintiff ’ s motion

. Pursuan t to this C ourt ’ s Inter im Decision

, its March 10, 2021 Entry

,

and th is Entry, Plaintiff is entitled to the following: ( 1 ) $ 95,4 40.38 in back pay ;

( 2 ) $ 2,422.12 in lost benefits ; ( 3 ) $10,000 in emotional distress; ( 4 ) $1 29 ,052.55 in

attorneys ’ fees and litigation expens es; (5) a dditional lost wages at $ 754. 90 per week

from Oc tober 25 , 2020 until the earlier of either the d ate t hat P laintiff ’ s reins t atemen t wa s

e ffective or March 31, 2021 ; and ( 6 ) $23,865.00 in supplemental attorneys’ fees a nd costs

associa ted with th e appeal

. Additionally, Plaintiff is not entit led to post

- judgment interes t

.

The clerk shall serve upon all part ies n otice of this judgment and it s date of entry upon

the journal

.Case No. 2019

- 000 86JD

- 5

- JUDGMENT ENTRY

DALE A. CRAWFORD

Judge

Filed April 20 , 2022

Sent to S.C. Reporter 5/ 31 / 22