Roty v. Battelle Mem'l Inst.

2017 Ohio 9125, 101 N.E.3d 1128
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 19, 2017
Docket16AP-266
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 2017 Ohio 9125 (Roty v. Battelle Mem'l Inst.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roty v. Battelle Mem'l Inst., 2017 Ohio 9125, 101 N.E.3d 1128 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017).

Opinions

BRUNNER, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Ann Roty and Mary Neff (collectively, "Roty and Neff"), appeal from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas entered on April 5, 2016 granting a motion for summary judgment filed by defendants-appellees, Battelle Memorial Institute, Jeffrey Perko, Jane Cozzarelli, Jeffrey Caspers, Gwendolyn Von Holten, Staci Palmer, and David Evans (collectively, "Battelle"). Because we find that the trial court erred in concluding that company-wide statistics showing the ages of employees retained and terminated during a 2013 reduction in force were so irrelevant as to not even be discoverable, we sustain Roty and Neff's first assignment of error. Because the resolution of that assignment of error will likely affect the summary judgment record, we find that the remaining assignments of error (all of which pertain to summary judgment) are rendered moot. We reverse and remand.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

{¶ 2} On March 7, 2014, Roty and Neff filed suit against Battelle and certain supervisor and management employees of Battelle alleging age discrimination stemming from both Roty's and Neff's terminations during a 2013 reduction in force at Battelle. (Mar. 7, 2014 Compl.) One of the claims made in the complaint was that the reduction in force was of disparate impact for workers over age 40, since they were allegedly disproportionately represented in the firings. Id. at ¶ 14. During the course of discovery, Roty and Neff moved the trial court for an order compelling Batelle "to produce discovery requested by plaintiffs relating to the statistics of the ages and positions of those included and not included in a reduction in force conducted at Battelle in August and September of 2013." (June 12, 2014 Mot. to Compel at 1.) The trial court referred all discovery disputes to a magistrate.

{¶ 3} In December 2014, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing in another pending case also involving discrimination claims against Battelle in connection with its same 2013 reduction in force. See Wasserstrom v. Battelle Mem. Inst. , Franklin C.P. No. 13CV-13871 (Aug. 14, 2015). The trial court permitted the parties in both cases to jointly present evidence in support of their respective positions on the statistical data discovery question at issue on this appeal.

{¶ 4} In Roty's and Neff's case, in a decision issued on February 23, 2015, the magistrate quoted from a decision issued by the judge in the Wasserstrom case:

This matter came before the Court on December 4, 2014, for an evidentiary hearing regarding the scope of discovery. The Court has considered all of the evidence and arguments presented by counsel.
The evidence presented indicates that each termination decision was made at the business unit level. Accordingly, at most, Plaintiff is entitled to the dates of birth and position titles for each Human Resources employee included in the August and September 2013 RIF in which Defendant Thomas D. Snowberger was the principal decision maker. Defendants submit that this information has already been produced.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's request for any further data is hereby DENIED.

(Feb. 23, 2015 Mag. Decision at 4, quoting Wasserstrom v. Battelle Mem. Inst. , Franklin C.P. No. 13CV-13871 (Jan. 28, 2015 Entry).) Relying upon the Wasserstrom decision and the evidence adduced during the December 4, 2014 joint hearing, the magistrate concluded that the termination decisions in this case were also made at the business unit level. (Feb. 23, 2015 Mag. Decision at 4-5.) On that basis, the magistrate found that Roty and Neff were only entitled to discovery regarding the birthdates and position titles for each employee included in the August and September 2013 reduction in force in their single business unit. Id. at 5. The magistrate therefore denied Roty and Neff's request to compel Battelle to provide statistics reaching across all of Battelle's business units. Id. Because the order only authorized discovery for those "included" in the reduction in force, it could have been understood two ways. First, it could have authorized discovery for each person who fell within the ambit of the reduction in force plan, regardless of whether the person actually lost his or her job. Second, and more restrictively, it could also have applied only to those who were "included" in the reduction in force in the sense that they were terminated as part of the reduction in force. Id.

{¶ 5} On March 9, 2015, Roty and Neff filed timely objections to the magistrate's decision. (Mar. 9, 2015 Objs.) Roty and Neff argued that the case law supports the need for statistical evidence of the nature they sought, particularly for disparate impact claims. Id. at 4-10. Roty and Neff also pointed out that the magistrate's "limitation of the production to just one business unit [did] not take into account the fact that the [reduction in force] decisions were reviewed and approved by [human resources]." Id. at 1. In support of their observation that reductions in force were reviewed by human resources, the objections drew attention to the fact that Battelle admitted as much in its responses to Neff's interrogatories. Id. at 1-2, citing Battelle's response to Neff's ninth interrogatory. Roty and Neff also argued that the magistrate's decision "failed to compel the production of the ages and positions of those employees not included in the [reduction in force]." Id. at 1.

{¶ 6} Approximately a month and a half later, the trial court overruled Roty and Neff's objections to the magistrate's decision and adopted the decision in its entirety. (Apr. 24, 2015 Entry Adopting Mag. Decision.) Although the trial court stated that it had "undertaken an independent and de novo review of the record and arguments," it did not specifically address any of Roty and Neff's arguments or state any specific reason for adopting the magistrate's decision. (Emphasis sic.) Id. After further discovery and motions and briefing by the parties, the trial court granted summary judgment to defendants. (Apr. 5, 2016 Decision & Entry.) The trial court in its decision denied both Roty's and Neff's claims because both had failed to present "direct, circumstantial, or statistical [evidence] to establish that age was a factor in the[ir] termination[s]." Id. at 11, 15. In granting summary judgment to Battelle, the trial court also noted that, consistent with a decision from October 1, of 2015, 1 it would not rely on late-filed expert affidavits. Id. at 5.

{¶ 7} Roty and Neff timely appeal.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

{¶ 8} Roty and Neff assign the following errors for our review:

[1.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN REFUSING TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF STATISTICAL DATA REGARDING THE REDUCTION IN FORCE IN WHICH PLAINTIFFS WERE TERMINATED.
[2.] THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING PLAINTIFFS FAILED TO PROVE THE FOURTH PRONG OF THEIR PRIMA FACIE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Reece v. Davis-Williams
2026 Ohio 328 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2026)
HDDA, L.L.C. v. Vasani
2025 Ohio 2000 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2025)
Williams v. Thomas
2023 Ohio 2856 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
Roty v. Battelle Mem. Inst.
2020 Ohio 4389 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
Roty v. Battelle Mem'l Inst.
2017 Ohio 9125 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ohio 9125, 101 N.E.3d 1128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roty-v-battelle-meml-inst-ohioctapp-2017.