Gliner v. Saint-Gobain Norton Industrial Ceramics Corp.

[This opinion has been published in Ohio Official Reports at 

89 Ohio St.3d 414

.]




      GLINER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. SAINT-GOBAIN NORTON INDUSTRIAL
                        CERAMICS CORPORATION, APPELLEE.
          [Cite as Gliner v. Saint-Gobain Norton Indus. Ceramics Corp.,
                                     

2000-Ohio-210

.]
Civil procedure—Motion for directed verdict—Civ.R. 50—Trial court’s denial of
        defendant’s motion for directed verdict upheld, when.
       (No. 99-1444—Submitted May 23, 2000—Decided August 9, 2000.)
       APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 74055.
                                  __________________
        {¶ 1} Appellants Marina Gliner, a product engineer, Betty Jane Nowac, an
accounting manager, Randi Deluga, a cost accountant, and Wilma Joiner, a traffic
manager, brought gender discrimination actions under R.C. 4112.02(A) against
their former employer Saint-Gobain/Norton Industrial Ceramics Corporation
(“Saint-Gobain”). Saint-Gobain is a French corporation headquartered in Paris,
France, with multinational operations in Europe, Japan, and the United States.
        {¶ 2} The case went to trial. The court of appeals’ opinion summarized the
evidence presented in ninety-seven pages of cogent and comprehensive prose,
which we hereby incorporate by reference. See 

1999 WL 380434

. Upon the
conclusion of the trial, the jury returned the following verdicts: (1) in favor of
appellant Wilma Joiner on her pay discrimination claim for $20,000 in
compensatory damages and $140,000 in punitive damages and in favor of Saint-
Gobain on her discriminatory termination claim, (2) in favor of appellant Randi
Deluga on her pay discrimination claim for $50,000 in compensatory damages and
$100,000 in punitive damages, (3) in favor of appellant Marina Gliner on both her
pay discrimination and discriminatory termination claims for $75,000 in
compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages, and (4) in favor of
                              SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




appellant Betty Jane Nowac on both her pay discrimination and discriminatory
termination claims for $50,000 in compensatory damages and $500,000 in punitive
damages. The jury also found Saint-Gobain to be liable for appellants’ attorney
fees, which the trial court assessed at $175,000, based on a stipulation of the parties.
The trial court ordered prejudgment interest on the compensatory damages awards,
also based on a stipulation of the parties. On appeal, the court of appeals reversed
the judgments in favor of appellants and entered judgment notwithstanding the
verdicts in favor of Saint-Gobain on all claims.
        {¶ 3} The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a
discretionary appeal.
                                __________________
        Sindell, Young, Guidubaldi & Sucher and Steven A. Sindell, for appellants.
        Spieth, Bell, McCurdy & Newell Co., L.P.A., and Dianne Foley Hearey, for
appellee.
        Stewart Jaffy & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy,
urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio AFL-CIO.
        Louis A. Jacobs; Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman and Frederick M. Gittes,
urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio Employment Lawyers Association, Ohio
Academy of Trial Lawyers, National Employees Rights Institute, and Ohio NOW
Education & Legal Fund.
        Cathleen M. Bolek, urging reversal for amici curiae Feminist Majority
Foundation, Wider Opportunities for Women, Women Employed, and 9 to 5
National Association of Working Women.
        Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Edward B. Foley, State Solicitor,
Stephanie Bostos Demers and Matthew D. Miko, Assistant Attorneys General,
urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Civil Rights Commission.
                                __________________




                                           2
                                January Term, 2000




        PFEIFER, J.
        {¶ 4} Civ.R. 50(A)(4) provides that when a party moves for a directed
verdict and “the trial court, after construing the evidence most strongly in favor of
the party against whom the motion is directed, finds that upon any determinative
issue reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion upon the evidence
submitted and that conclusion is adverse to such party, the court shall sustain the
motion and direct a verdict for the moving party as to that issue.” In this case, the
trial court denied St. Gobain’s motion for a directed verdict.
        {¶ 5} The court of appeals, after a de novo review of the evidence,
determined that reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and found that
the trial court erred by not granting a directed verdict for St. Gobain. We disagree
as a matter of law.
        {¶ 6} There is unquestionably significant evidence in the voluminous
record before us that tends to show that Saint-Gobain did not act in a discriminatory
manner. However, there is also ample evidence to enable reasonable minds to find
for the appellants. Whether we would have found for appellants or for Saint-
Gobain is immaterial; it is sufficient that there is adequate evidence for reasonable
minds to find for either. O’Day v. Webb (1972), 

29 Ohio St.2d 215

, 

58 O.O.2d 424

,

280 N.E.2d 896

, paragraph four of the syllabus; see Pangle v. Joyce (1996), 

76 Ohio St.3d 389, 391

, 

667 N.E.2d 1202, 1203

. Accordingly, the trial court ruled
correctly and the court of appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s denial of a
motion for directed verdict. We reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and
reinstate the jury verdicts.
                                                                 Judgment reversed
                                                        and jury verdicts reinstated.
        RESNICK and F.E. SWEENEY, JJ., concur.
        DOUGLAS, J., concurs in judgment.
        MOYER, C.J., COOK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., dissent.




                                          3
                                SUPREME COURT OF OHIO




                                  __________________
        COOK, J., dissenting.
        {¶ 7} The majority decides that “there is * * * ample evidence to enable
reasonable minds to find for the appellants.” But other than reciting the standard
for directed verdicts from our O’Day1 syllabus, the majority simply concludes,
without elaboration, that the court of appeals erred when it deemed the evidence
legally insufficient to permit appellants’ gender discrimination claims to reach the
jury.
        {¶ 8} The majority discounts the thorough legal analysis by the court of
appeals without any contrary analysis. In effect, the majority says here that a
directed verdict may be granted against a party only if that party fails to present any
evidence. To say this is to improperly insulate cases from review for legal
sufficiency under Civ.R. 50. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
(2000), 

530 U.S. ___

, 

120 S.Ct. 2097

, 

147 L.Ed.2d 105

.
        {¶ 9} The appellate panel found that the complexity of this case called for a
ninety-seven-page opinion. In a very recent decision on the same general issue, the
United States Supreme Court required fifteen pages to analyze the problem of
applying Fed.R.Civ.P. 50 to discrimination cases that employ McDonnell
Douglas’s2 burden-shifting analysis. 

Reeves, supra.

        {¶ 10} Ohio follows federal jurisprudence in the area of discrimination law.
Little Forest Med. Ctr. of Akron v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1991), 

61 Ohio St.3d 607, 609-610

, 

575 N.E.2d 1164, 1167

. See, also, Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint
Apprenticeship Commt. v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. (1981), 

66 Ohio St.2d 192, 196

,

20 O.O.3d 200, 202-203

, 

421 N.E.2d 128, 131

. In 

Reeves, supra,

 the United States
Supreme Court established parameters for federal appellate courts reviewing the


1. O’Day v. Webb (1972), 

29 Ohio St.2d 215

, 

58 O.O.2d 424

, 

280 N.E.2d 896

.

2. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 

411 U.S. 792

, 

93 S.Ct. 1817

, 

36 L.Ed.2d 668

 .




                                              4
                               January Term, 2000




application of Civ.R. 50 to McDonnell Douglas cases, and emphasized its
determination not to “insulate an entire category of employment discrimination
cases from review under Rule 50.” 

Reeves, supra,

530 U.S. at ___

, 

120 S.Ct. at 2109

, 

147 L.Ed.2d at 120

. This case deserves appropriate legal review under the
recently announced Reeves standards.
       {¶ 11} Given that the majority fails to counter the appellate court’s legal
analysis, I am unable to join the judgment to reverse.
       MOYER, C.J., and LUNDBERG STRATTON, J., concur in the foregoing
dissenting opinion.
                              __________________




                                         5