Volume 183 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

summary judgment – political subdivision immunity – R.C. 2744.02(B)(5) – R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(b) – R.C. 2744.03(A)(6)(c) – R.C. 955.28(B) – wanton and reckless – police canine – verbal warning – apprehending fleeing suspect – apartment – threshold

Trial court did not err by granting summary judgment for employer on race and national origin discrimination claims because plaintiff failed to establish that 3-day working suspension was an adverse employment action or that similarly situated, non-protected employees were treated more favorably regarding other disciplinary measures. Trial court erred by granting summary judgment for employer on retaliation claim because plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case of retaliation and presented evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether employer's proffered legitimate, nonretaliatory reason for action was a pretext for retaliation.

SEX OFFENSES – MEGAN'S LAW – FORMER R.C. 2950.09(B): Where defendant was convicted of rape, he cannot be classified as a sexual predator under the Megan's Law version of former R.C. 2950.09(B) where the indictment contained sexually-violent-predator specifications, but the state dismissed those specifications pursuant to a plea bargain: R.C. 2950.09(B)(1)(a)(ii) provides for a sexual-predator-classification hearing where the indictment did not contain a sexually-violent-predator specification, and because defendant's indictment did contain sexually-violent-predator specifications, which the state ultimately dismissed in a plea bargain, he cannot be classified as sexual predator under the statute.

The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of appellee, a home restoration company, on appellant's breach of contract claim where appellant failed to prove he incurred any compensable damages as a result of appellee's alleged breach of contract. The fact that appellant felt annoyed and irritated by appellee's alleged unprofessionalism does not have an economic value sufficient to support an award of damages in a breach-of-contract case.

Trial court did not err by affirming Board of Pharmacy order denying application to operate retail medical marijuana dispensary. The Board's order was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence based on the administrative record, and was in accordance with law because the Board substantially complied with the conditions set out in its request for applications. Appellant failed to establish standing for constitutional challenge because it failed to demonstrate its application was denied because of the challenged statutory provision. Judgment affirmed.

Affirming entry of summary judgment in favor of appellee, Lafarge, on the grounds that the evidence showed that the injury was not foreseeable to Lafarge and, thus, there was no duty, as a matter of law.