Volume 246 — North Eastern Reporter, Third Series

Grant of Motion for Judgment on Pleadings - Civ.R. 12(C) - Illusory Contract - Unjust Enrichment - Civ.R. 15(A) - Trial Court's Denial of Motion for Leave to Amend was not an Abuse of Discretion.

promissory estoppel, statute of frauds

Sanctions, Frivolous conduct, Attorney fees

Board of Revision ("BOR") appeal to Board of Tax Authority ("BTA") jurisdiction NFAO

DOMESTIC RELATIONS – DIVORCE - PROPERTY DIVISION – DISTRIBUTIVE AWARD - FINANCIAL MISCCONDUCT: The trial court did not err in making a distributive award to wife from husband's separate property: Although the trial court improperly characterized husband's criminal actions and 30-year prison term as financial misconduct under R.C. 3105.171(E)(4), it also properly found that the distributive award was necessary to effectuate an equitable division of property under R.C. 3105.171(E)(1), R.C. 3105.171(B), and the court's equitable powers.

CIVIL - disability discrimination tortious interference with employment relationship Open Meetings Act Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss res judicata claim preclusion issue preclusion finality issues were already decided privity sua sponte dismissal

Age discrimination promotion summary judgment. Judgment affirmed. The three-step burden shifting analysis set forth in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) applies to an age-discrimination claim. Under the analysis, the employee must first establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. If the employee establishes a prima facie case, the burden of production shifts to the employer to state some legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for its action. Finally, the burden shifts back to the employee to show that the employer's stated reasons were a pretext for age discrimination. The plaintiff established a prima facie case. However, the employer provided legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for its action. The employee failed to show that the employer's reasons were pretext for age discrimination. Summary judgment in favor of the employer was properly granted.

Zmuda, J., writing for the majority, affirms the judgment finding violations of Ohio water pollution control laws, imposing civil penalties, and granting injunctive relief as there was competent credible evidence to support the findings as to each violation and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing civil penalties.