Opinion ID: 2765250
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: disability discrimination under ohio law

Text: Pearson also challenges the grant of summary judgment on his Ohio disabilitydiscrimination claim. The Ohio Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment on the basis of disability. Slane v. MetaMateria Partners, L.L.C., 892 N.E.2d 498, 502 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (citing Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02(A)). In cases of disability discrimination, Ohio courts are guided by federal decisions interpreting the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). See e.g., Spencer v. Nat’l City Bank, 732 F. Supp. 2d 778, 787 (S.D. Ohio 2010) (observing that “ADA and Ohio disability discrimination actions require the same analysis.”). - 13 - No. 14-3197 Pearson v. Cuyahoga County To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA and Ohio law for failure to accommodate, Pearson had to show that 1) he is disabled, 2) he is otherwise qualified for the position, with or without a reasonable accommodation, 3) the County knew or had reason to know about his disability, 4) he requested an accommodation, and 5) the County failed to provide the necessary accommodation. See, e.g., Myers v. Cuyahoga Cnty., Ohio, 182 F. App’x 510, 515 (6th Cir. 2006). The district court determined that Pearson presented no evidence that he requested an accommodation either when he called off work on February 21 through 24, 2012, or after he became aware that the County was contesting the validity of his FMLA leave for those absences. PID 698. On appeal, Pearson does not address the district court’s determination or explain how it constituted error. Finding nothing in the record to undermine the district court’s determination, we affirm its grant of summary judgment on Pearson’s state disability-discrimination claim.