Opinion ID: 1232889
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: State law discrimination

Text: Courie alleges that UAW defendants King and Judson discriminated against him by failing to take his grievance to arbitration and by settling it, and that Alcoa defendant Isaac discriminated against him by settling his grievance. Ohio law makes it unlawful for any employer, because of the race, color, ... or ancestry of any persons ... to discharge without just cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment. OHIO REV.CODE § 4112.02(A). Similarly, Ohio law also prohibits any labor organization from [d]iscriminat[ing] against, limit[ing] the employment opportunities of, or otherwise adversely affect[ing] the employment status, wages, hours, or employment conditions of any person as an employee because of race, color, ... or ancestry. OHIO REV.CODE § 4112.02(C)(2). To establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination under § 4112.02, Ohio law requires the plaintiff to show: (1) background circumstances supporting the inference that plaintiff's employer was the unusual employer who discriminated against non-minority employees, (2) that plaintiff was discharged (or that the employer took an action adverse to the plaintiff's employment), (3) that plaintiff was qualified for the position, and (4) that plaintiff was treated disparately from similarly situated minority employees. Courie, 832 N.E.2d at 1235; see also Genaro v. Cent. Transp., 84 Ohio St.3d 293, 703 N.E.2d 782, 784 (1999) (The Ohio Supreme Court has ruled that federal case law interpreting and applying Title VII is generally applicable [to § 4112.02 claims].). Here, again, Courie is a class of one and thus cannot point to any similarly-situated minority employees who were warned and yet were not subject to the allegedly racist settlement agreement. Further, the settlement agreement does not appear to be an adverse action: it appears to be the opposite of adverse, actually, considering that it proposed to remove the traces of the original written warning from his record. And, finally, Courie's argument that the union should have pursued his claim for arbitration is an impermissible attempt to bootstrap the federal duty of fair representation into state law, despite his having already lost on that claim. Courie therefore cannot maintain a § 4112.02 claim against the UAW or Alcoa.