[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 requests 

the Court award 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. 

Facts

{¶2} Plaintiff asserted that Defendant was liable to her for disability discrimination 

and failure to accommodate pursuant to state and federal law. After finding that Plaintiff 

proved her claims, the Court rendered judgment in favor of Plaintiff. February 1, 2021 

Interim Decision. The Court found that Plaintiff was entitled to reinstatement 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

awarded Plaintiff additional lost wages at $754.90 per week from “October 25, 2020 until 

the earlier of: 1) the date her reinstatement is effective, or 2) March 31, 2021”, provided 

that “Plaintiff provid[ed] the Court with evidence that she was medically able to work with 

the revised schedule on those days * * *.”

1 March 10, 2021 Entry. Additionally, the Court 

awarded Plaintiff $129,052.55 in attorneys’ fees and costs. Id. 

1 Plaintiff filed supplemental evidence pursuant to this Court’s conditional award. See Plaintiff’s April 13, 2021 

Notice. Upon consideration of the same, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to additional lost wages as provided for

in its March 10, 2021 entry. See id., Ex. A, Supplemental 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 ENTRY
Case No. 2019-00086JD -2- JUDGMENT ENTRY

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

Coomer v. Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 21AP-158, 

2022-Ohio-387. To litigate the appeal on Plaintiff’s behalf, Attorney Carrie Dyer,

performed 58 additional hours of work, charged at a rate of $335 per hour. Affidavit of 

Carrie Dyer, ¶ 7-8, Ex. B-1. Additionally, Attorney Greg Mansell performed 11 additional 

hours of work, charged at a rate of $400 per hour. Affidavit of Greg Mansell, ¶ 7-9, Ex. A1. These rates are within the reasonable market value for services provided by attorneys 

in central Ohio with similar experience, knowledge, and skill. Affidavit of Rachel Sabo

Friedmann, ¶ 10-13. Plaintiff also incurred $35 in supplemental costs associated with the

oral argument, including $25 for printing and copying and $10 for parking. Mansell Aff.,

¶ 10, Ex. A-2. The additional hours and costs spent litigating the appeal are reasonable 

and typical for similar employment law litigation. Sabo Friedmann Aff., ¶ 14-15. 

Additionally, the Ohio Verified Interest Rates for 2021 and 2022 are 3% per annum. 

Plaintiff Laura Coomer’s Motion for Supplemental Attorneys’ Fees & Costs Associated

with the Appeal & Motion for Post-Judgment Interest, Ex. D.

Discussion

{¶4} Initially, the Court notes that Defendant does not oppose Plaintiff’s request for 

supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the appeal. Upon review, the 

Court finds that the requested award is reasonable and Plaintiff is entitled to supplemental 

attorneys’ fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court awards Plaintiff $23,865.00 in 

supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs associated with the appeal. 

{¶5} Additionally, Plaintiff seeks post-judgment interest on the total award at the 

applicable statutory rate with continually accruing interest until the judgment is paid. 

Generally, costs do not include fees that are not statutorily authorized. State ex rel. Toth 

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

R.C. 2743.18(B) authorizes post-judgment interest on the full award. See, e.g., Warden 

v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources, Ct. of Cl. No. 2011-01232, 2013-Ohio-1512, ¶ 18 
Case No. 2019-00086JD -3- JUDGMENT ENTRY

(“Plaintiff also seeks post-judgment interest on the award of back pay at the current 

statutory rate of 3% per annum pursuant to R.C. 2743.18(B). In its post-trial briefs, 

defendant acknowledges that the statute allows for the same. Accordingly, post-judgment 

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

2743.18(B).”). However, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s request for post-judgment 

interest should be denied because 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 relevant part:

If the court of claims renders judgment * * * against 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 * * *, postjudgment

interest shall be paid with respect to the judgment * * * at the same rate that

is applicable to judgments rendered against private parties * * * and for each

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

of the judgment * * *. 

A “tort” is a “civil wrong, other than breach of contract, for which the court will provide a

remedy in the form of an action for damages.” Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the

Law of Torts, Section 2 (1984); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 1246 (Abridged 8th

Ed.2005). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims

are civil causes of action based on tortious conduct. See Kirk v. Shaw Envtl., Inc.,

N.D.Ohio No. 10:09-cv-1405, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51332, 14 (May 25, 2010),

citing Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 551 N.E.2d

981 (1990); Reilly v. Alcan Aluminum Corp., 6th Cir. No. 98-3566, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS

8739 (May 5, 1999); Hoyt v. Nationwide Mutual Ins. Co., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 04AP941, 2005-Ohio-6367 (“Ohio treats claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public

policy and employment discrimination as tort claims.”); see also Dugger v. Honeywell
Case No. 2019-00086JD -4- JUDGMENT ENTRY

Internatl. Inc., N.D.Ohio No. 1:21-cv-00892, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 240089, 13 (Dec. 16,

2021) (Plaintiff alleged that Defendant “committed a tort—i.e., employment discrimination

and retaliation— * * * and that [Plaintiff] suffered the tortious injury—i.e., lost commission

wages and termination of employment— * * *.”). Furthermore, the Court finds that the

plain language of R.C. 2743.18(B)(2) specifically precludes post-appeal recovery of postjudgment interest in tort actions.

{¶7} While this Court has previously granted post-judgment interest pursuant to

R.C. 2743.18(B)(2), it did so in a breach of contract action. See Wood Electric, Inc. v.

Ohio Facilities Construction Commission, Ct. of. Cl. No. 2014-00987, 2017-Ohio-7524. 

Alternatively, the Court has once previously granted post-judgment interest in an

employment law action prior to any appeal and when the parties agreed to such an award.

Warden at ¶ 18; see also R.C. 2743.18(B)(1). Neither case applies here. Under the

circumstances present in this case, the Court finds that Plaintiff is not entitled to postappeal post-judgment interest.

Conclusion

{¶8} For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS, in part, and DENIES, in 

part, Plaintiff’s motion. Pursuant to this Court’s Interim Decision, its March 10, 2021 Entry, 

and this Entry, Plaintiff is entitled to the following: (1) $95,440.38 in back pay; 

(2) $2,422.12 in lost benefits; (3) $10,000 in emotional distress; (4) $129,052.55 in 

attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses; (5) additional lost wages at $754.90 per week 

from October 25, 2020 until the earlier of either the date that Plaintiff’s reinstatement was 

effective or March 31, 2021; and (6) $23,865.00 in supplemental attorneys’ fees and costs 

associated with the appeal. Additionally, Plaintiff is not entitled to post-judgment interest. 

The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon 

the journal.
Case No. 2019-00086JD -5- JUDGMENT ENTRY

DALE A. CRAWFORD

Judge

Filed April 20, 2022

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