 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Yamamoto v. Midwest Screw Products6/28/2002
. Plaintiff-appellant Richard Yamamoto ("appellant") appeals from the decision of the Lake County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees Midwest Screw Products, et. al ("appellees").
. The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows. Appellant was terminated from his job at Midwest Screw Products on June 3, 1999. Appellant brought suit alleging disability discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.02 and Ohio public policy against disability discrimination. Appellees sought summary judgment asserting that appellant: is not and was never disabled, as defined under R.C. 4112.02; was terminated for insubordination and not due to any disability; and, no one was hired to replace him.
. Appellant contends that he had a physical impairment that substantially limited his major life activities which was the basis for his termination. Moreover, appellant claims he was regarded as disabled by appellees. Appellant moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
. On November 1, 2000, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellees. The trial court found that no genuine issue of material fact exists because appellant failed to establish that he is disabled. Therefore, the trial court held appellant failed to establish that he was disabled, the first element of his prima facie claim for disability discrimination, and appellees were entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
. Appellant timely appeals from this decision and advances four assignments of error for our review. At the outset, we note that this court reviews a trial court's grant of summary judgment de novo. Summary judgment is proper when:
(1) there is no genuine issue as to any material fact;
(2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and
(3) reasonable minds can come but to one conclusion, and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence construed most strongly in his favor."
. The party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
. We shall examine appellant's first three assignments of error initially as they all relate to establishing the first element of appellant's prima facie case for disability discrimination. Appellant's first assignment of error is as follows:
. "The trial court erred in concluding that Mr. Yamamoto was not disabled by virtue of his herniated disk and the associated physical limitations."
. Appellant's second assignment of error is:
. "The trial court erred in not considering whether Mr. Yamamoto was `regarded as disabled'".
. Appellant's third assignment of error states:
. "The trial court erred in concluding that Mr. Yamamoto is not disabled by virtue of a record of impairment."
. The Ohio Civil Rights Act, R.C. 4112.02(A) prohibits disability employment discrimination. This statute provides that it shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
. "(A) For any employer, because of the race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, or ancestry of any person, to discharge without cause, to refuse to hire, or otherwise discriminate against that person with respect to hire, tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment."
. R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) defines disability as:
. "'Disabil
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|