Opinion ID: 2981744
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Second Library Investigation of Abrams

Text: 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.