 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
lan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
{ } Although it is not entirely clear from the record, plaintiff apparently is referring to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas case of Fitch v. Abbott Laboratories, case No. 94CVHO8-5867. The record before this court contains a copy of an agreed order in the Fitch case. The order, which was signed by the trial court judge and dated November 3, 1997, vacated an earlier judgment entry and states that "all claims that were or could have been asserted by [Fitch] herein are hereby dismissed with prejudice." (Emphasis sic.)
{ } Plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding evidence regarding the prior case. Thus, plaintiff's sixth assignment of error is overruled.
{ } For the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's first and second assignments of error are sustained on the basis that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for JNOV as to plaintiff's age discrimination claim, but his second assignment of error is overruled to the extent plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in conditionally granting defendants' motion for a new trial on the issue of plaintiff's age discrimination claim. Our determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in conditionally granting defendants' motion for a new trial as to plaintiff's age discrimination claim moots defendants' first, second, and third cross-assignments of error, as well as plaintiff's third, seventh, and eighth assignments of error. Plaintiff's fourth, fifth, and sixth assignments of error are overruled. The judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and this cause is remanded to that court for further proceedings in accordance with law and consistent with this opinion.
Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and cause remanded.
FRENCH J., concurs.
McCORMAC, J., dissents.
McCORMAC, J., retired of the Tenth Appellate District, assigned to active duty under authority of Section 6(C), Article IV, Ohio Constitution.
McCORMAC, J., dissenting
{ } I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiff's claim of age discrimination. I respectfully disagree with the majority's ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting a conditional new trial.
{ } My analysis of the evidence leads me to the conclusion that the jury correctly found that the defendant's reason for the adverse employment action was a pretext for unlawful discrimination. The jury's finding was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, but fully in accordance with it. Defendant's reason is not well supported by the record, in contrast to plaintiff's evidentiary history of excellent service to defendant and remarks by defendant's personnel which strongly indicated that he was assigned to a poor territory and inferior position because of his age and for no other legitimate reason.
{ } My conclusion is fortified by the fact that the trial court failed to articulate reasons for its ruling to enable us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in ordering a new trial. See Antal v. Olde World Products, Inc. (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 144,
{ } Demonstrative of the inability of our court to fully review the trial court's conditional order is the majority's analysis which primarily consists of the statement that "after thoroughly reviewing the extensive record in this case, and considering the sound discretion provided to the trial court in determining whether to grant
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|