Opinion ID: 2981744
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Colston’s Complaints to the Library

Text: Colston alleges that during her employment with the Library, her coworkers subjected her to sexually offensive and otherwise harassing conduct. Her complaints are as follows.
Colston alleges that during the first few months of her employment, she complained to Abrams about the profanity he used during roll call in front of all the officers. She also claims that she made a complaint to Felton Thomas, the Library’s Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director, “midway or ending of 2008.” However, Thomas did not start working at the Library until January 19, 2009. Neither complaint was documented, nor does Colston offer evidence of either complaint.
On August 21, 2009, security officer Eugene Dycks made a verbal threat about Ms. Colston to another officer. Janero and Tufts investigated the incident, and on September 24, 2009, suspended Dycks for one week. Dycks was not allowed to return to work until he completed training with the Library’s Employee Assistant Program. Colston declined to press criminal charges against Dycks because she did “not want[ ] to put Dycks’ financial situation into hardship.” 3
On November 4, 2009, Colston complained to Tim Diamond, the Assistant to the Library’s Director, that inappropriate language was being used in the security department, and that she felt she was in a hostile work environment. The Library hired an outside investigator. She had discovered that Abrams used inappropriate language, made sexual innuendoes, and revealed employees’ personal information. The Library suspended Abrams for five days. The Library also issued a “Counseling Memo” to Defendant Janero, for failing “to step in to stop the unacceptable conduct,” and for letting it be widely know that he was “not partial to women officers.”
In April 2011, Colston made a second formal complaint, and met with the Library Director, Defendant Felton, as well as Defendant Tufts, the Library Human Resources Administrator. Colston told Felton and Tufts that her coworkers, including Abrams, were threatening and intimidating her. Again, the Library hired an outside investigator and eventually concluded that Abrams had violated workplace policies. The Library placed Abrams on administrative leave and scheduled a pre-termination hearing. Abrams resigned before the hearing ended. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Colston filed a Complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas against the Library Defendants, and a former employee of the Library, Abrams. Colston asserted the following six counts: (1) sexual discrimination and harassment in violation of Ohio Revised Code (“R.C.”) Chapter 4112; (2) negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training under Ohio common law; (3) retaliation in violation of R.C. Chapter 4112; (4) intentional infliction of emotional distress under Ohio common law; (5) violation of substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth and 4 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution; and (6) gender discrimination and harassment in violation of Title VII, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2002e-2. The Library and Abrams timely removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “district court”). After the conclusion of discovery, the Library and Abrams filed separate motions for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to both the Library and Abrams, dismissing Colston’s entire complaint. The district court stated that Colston had failed to identify any record evidence demonstrating a genuine issue of material fact. ISSUES ON APPEAL (1) Whether the district court properly dismissed Colston’s sexual discrimination and hostile work environment claims with respect to both the Library and Abrams. (2) Whether the district court properly dismissed Colston’s negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and failure to train claims with respect to both the Library and Abrams. (3) Whether the district court properly dismissed Colston’s retaliation claims with respect to both the Library and Abrams. (4) Whether the district court properly dismissed Colston’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claims with respect to both the Library and Abrams. (5) Whether Colston waived her Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment claims by failing to oppose summary judgment on those claims.