Read our notable cases

Bergandine v. City of Delaware, Case No. 98CAE08038 (5th Dist.):  The only published case on employee health insurance coordination of benefits laws in the State of Ohio.  Determined that the primary insurer was not the husband’s insurance through his state employer, but the plaintiff’s insurance secured through her public employment.

Hoge v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 384 F.3d 238 (6th Cir. 2003):  Determined that job restoration under the FMLA must occur at the time the employee presents a return to work slip, and not later.  Hoge obtained summary judgment on liability in this case, which was upheld by the appeals court.

Tippens v. Airnet Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-421 (S.D.Ohio 2007):  Employee who used up his FMLA entitlement and tried to return a week later but was denied return via a “layoff” defense succeeded in sustaining his claim.  The Court decided, based on the facts presented, that the reason Tippens was chosen for layoff was that he was on FMLA-protected leave at that time, and that this was enough to take the claim to a jury.

Schmauch v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 295 F.Supp.2d 823 (S.D.Ohio 2003):  Employee’s attendance-related disciplinary status was extended by the number of days he spent on FMLA and military leave.  He was discharged as a result of being on attendance discipline which he would have been off of had it not been extended.  The Court sustained claims under both the FMLA and the Uniform Services Employment Reemployment and Readjustment Act (“USERRA”).

Grace v. USCAR, 521 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2008):  Sustained a claim against a successor entity to the original employer in the FMLA context.  Mr. Reeve wrote the brief for amicus curiae, the National Employment Lawyers Association, and that brief was cited favorably in the decision of the Court.

Kleiber v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 485 F.3d 862 (6th Cir. 2007):  Though summary judgment in favor of the employer was affirmed by the Court, this case established a reasonably achievable standard in the Circuit for plaintiffs regarding the breakdown of the interactive process for reasonable accommodations under the ADA.  It has been cited repeatedly since the decision was released.

Smith v. CallTech Communications, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-144 (S.D.Ohio 2009):  Established that requiring doctor’s notes for each and every instance of intermittent FMLA leave was equal to requiring medical certification for each and every instance of intermittent FMLA leave, and therefore subject to the written request and 15-day return rule.

Jordan v. Belt Railway Co., Case No. 06 C 6024 (N.D.Ill. 2009):  Jordan obtained summary judgment that the employer had failed to return him to work immediately upon the presentation of a viable return to work slip from his doctor.  This decision turned on the Court’s refusal to allow the employer to delay the return to work pending a fitness for drug examination.

Royer v. Tigerpoly Mfg., Inc., Case No. 2:05-cv-1134 (S.D.Ohio 2006):  Employer failed to obtain summary judgment on Royer’s claims of FMLA interference, as his treating physician’s claims of the need for “light duty” were disputable as claims for FMLA-qualified leave, given the severity of the restrictions requested.

King v. Steward Trumbull Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 30 F.4th 551 (6th Cir. 2022):  Reestablished and improved upon use of leave beyond that provided by FMLA as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.

Emswiler v. CSX Transp., Inc., 691 F.3d 782 (6th Cir. 2012):  Established the right of railroad union workers to bring their cases to the federal court and not be trapped in the Adjustmewnt Board by the Railway Labor Act.

Bennett v. Bd. of Educ. JVS Dist., 2010 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 106033 (S.D.Ohio 2010): Sustained a teacher’s claim against retaliation for supporting a disabled student’s claim for reasonable accommodation and established that the teacher need not have filed an EEOC Charge to bring her lawsuit.

Mitchell v. Dejoy, 2021 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 178200 (S.D. Ohio 2021):  Sustained plaintiff’s ADA retaliation claim against the U.S. Postal Service through summary judgment in a very fact-intensive case.

Crawford v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 531 Fed. Appx. 622 (6th Cir. 2013): Reversed summary judgment in fact-intensive FMLA interference and retaliation case re whether the plaintiff was returned to an equivalent position upon her return from FMLA leave.

Blair v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc., 2002-Ohio-1065 (5th Dist.):  Established a common law wrongful discharge claim based on a safe workplace for the individual employee in violation of Ohio public policy based on Ohio Revised Code §4101.12.

Bradley v. Mary Rutan Hosp. Assn, 295 F.Supp.2d 823 (S.D.Ohio 2003):  The decision denying summary judgment to the employer further defined the standards under which FMLA cases are decided to include many adverse actions.  The case was tried on liability to a jury, and liability was decided in favor of Bradley.

Beery v. Associated Hygeinic Prods., 243 Fed. Appx. 129 (6th Cir. 2007):  Beery was discharged after being physically unable to work a particular job assignment in the employer’s facility, even though he had successfully worked many other positions at the facility for over two years.  The appeals court returned the case for trial based on the employer’s mistaken assertion that Beery could not work any position at the facility (perceived disability under the ADA).

Wysong v. Dow Chemical Co., 503 F.3d 441 (6th Cir. 2007):  Employee who had multiple medical issues over a two-year period sustained claims for FMLA retaliation, discrimination based on a perceived disability, and wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio public policy.  The case expanded and further defined the scope of the FMLA standard, using the Bradley case (see above) as a basis for that expansion.  In addition, the perceived disability side of the case was unique in its facts and application.  Finally, the Ohio common law discharge claim successfully utilized the ADA’s prohibition on medical examinations beyond the narrow scope of determining whether the employee could perform the essential functions of the position.

Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481 (6th Cir. 2010):  Sustained a jury verdict in favor of Spengler on a claim of retaliation for complaining about potential age discrimination.  The decision upheld that the scope of an EEOC Charge of Discrimination was that which was in the text of the Charge, as opposed to what boxes were checked on the form.

Wellman v. Sutphen Corp., Case No. 2:08-cv-557 (S.D.Ohio 2008):  The employer failed to obtain summary judgment, as the adequacy of the employee’s FMLA certification was deemed to be a genuine dispute of material fact.

Smith v. Heartland Services, LLC, Case No. 2:07-cv-362 (S.D.Ohio 2009):  The employer failed to obtain summary judgment regarding Smith’s FMLA claim because there were absences at issue that should have been counted as FMLA leave to take care of her father, and these absences may have led to her discharge.

Vaughn v. Rent-A-Center, Inc., Case No. 2:06-cv-1027 (S.D.Ohio 2008):  The retail establishment failed to obtain summary judgment on the plaintiff’s Title III ADA claim for failing to allow him to enter and shop in the establishment accompanied by his mobility dog.

Brooks v. Lowe’s Home Centers, Inc., Case No. 2:04-cv-740 (S.D.Ohio 2006):  Employer failed to obtain summary judgment on Brooks’ FMLA claim because notice of Brooks’ need for FMLA leave was determined to be in dispute.

Spitzer v. Knapp, 2020-Ohio-399 (5th Dist.): Sustained a summary judgment obtained by Mr. Reeve at the trial, court level in a case involving alleged public figure defamation.  It was established that the alleged defamation was not, in fact, necessarily untrue, and that some of it was honestly held opinions rather than statements of fact.

Maeder v. Hollywood Casino, 97 F.Supp.3d 941 (S.D.Ohio 2015):  Sustained most all claims against a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to EEOC procedural issues and alleged lack of administrative exhaustion.

State ex rel. Fitzgerald v. Bd. of Trs. of Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund, 2015-Ohio-5079 (10th Dist.):  Established that the clear intent of the member to elect a certain right overrode the alleged procedural nitpicking (denial because the member used “white out” on the form) made in an attempt to deny her election of that right.

Miller v. Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs., 2018 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 164922 (S.D. Ohio 2018): Vacated decision by ERISA short-term disability carrier to deny coverage to chronically ailing employee.  Established that a flawed decision-making process was enough to vacate the decision even when facing the difficult ERISA legal standard for reversal.  Established that file peer review was insufficient when the Plan allowed for an actual physical examination.