Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp.

Ohio Supreme Court

Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp.

98 Ohio St. 3d 1535

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedApril 23, 2003

Docket2003-0426

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 98 Ohio St. 3d 1535 (Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Weller v. Titanium Metals Corp., 98 Ohio St. 3d 1535 (Ohio 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Certified State Law Question, No. C:202290. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following question certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division:

“In the absence of direct proof of age discrimination, is the fourth element in a prima facie case established under Ohio Revised Code Section 4112.02 et seq. where the plaintiff proves that he or she was replaced by a person substantially younger than he or she even though the replacement is over forty years old? More specifically, is the fourth element of the age discrimination prima facie case, as set forth in Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146, 451 N.E.2d 807, Syl. ¶ 1 (1983), still viable in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation, 517 U.S. 308, 313 (1996)?”

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

On motion to consolidate for purposes of oral argument with 2002-1758, Coryell v. Bank One Trust [1536]*1536Co., Franklin App. No. 02AP-191, 2002-Ohio-4443. Motion granted.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

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

Certified State Law Question, No. C:202290. On review of preliminary memoranda pursuant to S.Ct.Prac.R. XVIII(6). The court will answer the following question certified by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division:

“In the absence of direct proof of age discrimination, is the fourth element in a prima facie case established under Ohio Revised Code Section 4112.02 et seq. where the plaintiff proves that he or she was replaced by a person substantially younger than he or she even though the replacement is over forty years old? More specifically, is the fourth element of the age discrimination prima facie case, as set forth in Barker v. Scovill, Inc., 6 Ohio St.3d 146, 451 N.E.2d 807, Syl. ¶ 1 (1983), still viable in light of the United States Supreme Court decision in O’Connor v. Consolidated Coin Caterers Corporation, 517 U.S. 308, 313 (1996)?”

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

On motion to consolidate for purposes of oral argument with 2002-1758, Coryell v. Bank One Trust [1536]*1536Co., Franklin App. No. 02AP-191, 2002-Ohio-4443. Motion granted.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 Ohio St. 3d 1535, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/weller-v-titanium-metals-corp-ohio-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack