Gregory L. Frost

This case concerns a § 1983 civil rights action brought by death row inmate Kenneth Smith challenging multiple aspects of Ohio's lethal injection protocol under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and seeking a stay of his July 2011 execution. The court granted Smith's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, staying the execution until further order. The core reasoning was that Smith demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on his Equal Protection claim because Ohio's policy of following its written execution protocol except when it does not creates unconstitutional inconsistencies, particularly in medical team composition, IV access procedures, and accommodations for inmates' medical conditions.

criminal lawcivil rights

This case involved former manager and assistant manager employees of Monro Muffler Brake Inc. who sued the company alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act for failing to pay overtime for hours worked over forty per week. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that the company's compensation plan qualified for the Section 7(i) exception to the FLSA's overtime requirements because it constituted a bona fide commission rate. The reasoning centered on the fact that the employees' pay was tied to the controllable profits of the stores they managed, more than half of their compensation came from commissions, and their regular rate exceeded one and one-half times the minimum wage. As a result, the plaintiffs' motion for conditional class certification was denied as moot.

labor & employment

In this case, plaintiffs sued a temporary employee placement service for breaching an oral contract by failing to conduct a background check on an employee who stole approximately $203,000 from them. A jury found for the plaintiffs and awarded $65,533.02 in damages. The court then considered whether to offset this award by amounts the plaintiffs had received from settlements with their bank, insurance company, and a judgment against the thief and her husband. The court decided that setoff was appropriate under Ohio law to prevent double recovery, as the third-party payments exceeded the jury award, resulting in a judgment of zero dollars for the plaintiffs.

procedurebusiness & regulatorytorts & liability

In Stack v. Karnes, plaintiff Charles Stack sued Franklin County and its Board of Commissioners under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that jail staff ignored his repeated requests for insulin medication as a diabetic after his 2009 arrest, causing injuries in violation of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. It denied dismissal against Franklin County, reasoning that the county's lack of sui juris status under Ohio Rev. Code § 301.22 does not bar a Monell claim based on an alleged policy or custom of inadequate medical training. It granted dismissal against the Franklin County Board of Commissioners, holding that the board lacks authority over jail operations (which rest with the sheriff) and cannot face respondeat superior liability.

civil rightscriminal lawprocedure

This case involved a participant in an ERISA-governed employee health benefit plan who sought full reimbursement for knee surgery costs at an out-of-network hospital after receiving pre-certification, alleging entitlement to in-network rates under the plan or exceptions, plus claims for failure to disclose plan documents and promissory estoppel. The court granted the plan defendants' motion for judgment on the administrative record, denying additional benefits under ERISA, granted their summary judgment on the promissory estoppel claim, and partially granted the plaintiff's summary judgment on the non-disclosure claim by awarding statutory penalties of $17,600 for untimely document provision while denying related attorney fees. The core reasoning centered on the plan's explicit terms limiting coverage, the absence of bad faith or other factors warranting fees, and application of ERISA's penalty provisions based on the number of days documents were withheld.

healthcarelabor & employmentbusiness & regulatoryprocedure

In Dorsey v. Banks, a state prisoner convicted of one count of rape and three counts of gross sexual imposition petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, raising five claims including insufficient evidence, inadequate notice and double jeopardy protections due to ambiguous indictment counts and jury instructions, Confrontation Clause violations, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied a motion by the local prosecuting attorney to intervene and, after de novo review, granted a conditional writ on the second claim while denying relief on the others. The core reasoning was that the lack of differentiation among counts, the ambiguous partial acquittal, and overbroad instructions deprived the petitioner of adequate notice, the ability to prepare a defense, and protection against double jeopardy, warranting retrial within ninety days or release, whereas the remaining claims lacked merit under applicable constitutional standards.

criminal lawprocedure

In Myers v. Asset Acceptance LLC, the plaintiff sued a debt buyer and its attorneys under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, alleging that an affidavit and statement of account attached to a state court complaint for credit card debt were misleading because the affiant lacked personal knowledge of the debt. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the documents were not deceptive. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the federal claims, finding that the affidavit did not claim personal knowledge and that no reasonable juror could find the representations false or misleading under the least sophisticated consumer standard, and dismissed the state claim without prejudice.

business & regulatory

The case involved Ohio State University suing Keith Antonio Thomas and GDS Marketing, LLC for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and cyberpiracy under the Lanham Act, alleging unauthorized use of its registered trademarks like "BUCKEYES," "OHIO STATE," and related logos on a website and publications. The court granted the university's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, prohibiting the defendants from using the trademarks in commerce, on domain names, websites, or printed materials. The decision was based on the court's analysis that all four factors for injunctive relief—likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of equities, and public interest—favored the plaintiff, with evidence of confusing similarity in the defendants' uses.

business & regulatoryproperty

This case involved current and former employees at Life Time Fitness suing their employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act for unpaid overtime wages, alleging that their compensation structure violated the salary-basis test because pay was subject to deductions to recover unearned bonus or incentive amounts. Following cross-motions for summary judgment, an appeal to the Sixth Circuit, and a bench trial on remand, the court ruled in favor of the 24 plaintiffs and awarded specific amounts of overtime pay plus liquidated damages calculated from their regular rates and hours worked beyond 40 per week in the relevant periods. The core reasoning applied the FLSA salary-basis test (under both pre- and post-August 23, 2004 standards) to find that the bonus-recovery deductions created a substantial likelihood of improper reductions and actually occurred in November and December 2005, rendering the employees non-exempt and entitled to overtime for the affected pay periods.

labor & employment

The case involves Dr. Gerard Nuovo, a tenured pathology professor at Ohio State University, who reported multiple misdiagnoses of pap smears by cytotechnologists, objected to changes in a quality assurance policy, and was subsequently removed from his clinical duties with OSUPS and OSUPI, resulting in a salary reduction; he alleged discrimination based on national origin, retaliation, due process violations, and other claims against the university, its officials, and related entities. The court addressed multiple motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), granting them in full or in part for most defendants and claims. It dismissed claims one through three, six through eleven, and various components of others as to the OSUPS defendants and OSU defendants on grounds including qualified immunity, failure to state a claim, and statutes of limitations, while allowing a § 1981 claim against Barsky and certain compensation and post-2007 components to proceed. The reasoning centered on the insufficiency of the pleadings to overcome immunity defenses or establish viable causes of action under the alleged facts.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case arose from prior multi-state litigation between Zep Inc. and Midwest Motor Supply Co. over former employees, which the parties resolved through court-ordered mediation resulting in a confidential settlement agreement. The agreement included a one-year prohibition on Midwest hiring Zep employees, but Zep later sued alleging that Midwest breached the agreement by hiring sales representative David Cobb and, alternatively, that Midwest fraudulently induced Zep to enter the agreement. The parties disputed the effective date of Cobb's hire relative to the agreement's terms. The court denied Zep's motion for partial summary judgment, granted Midwest summary judgment on the breach-of-contract claim, and denied summary judgment on the fraud claim, finding no genuine issue of material fact on the contract claim but that disputed facts precluded summary disposition of the fraud allegations.

business & regulatorytorts & liability

This case involves plaintiff John W. Ferron, an Ohio attorney, who filed multiple consolidated diversity actions against various companies alleging they sent or authorized thousands of unlawful email solicitations in violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA), Ohio Revised Code § 1345.02(A). He also sought declaratory and injunctive relief under § 1345.09(D), as well as damages for intentional interference with or destruction of evidence, attorney fees, and punitive damages. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b). The court granted the motions in part, dismissing claims based on defendants' alleged failure to register fictitious business names and all claims in one case based on emails sent before April 3, 2006, while denying the motions as to the remaining claims and finding personal jurisdiction over certain defendants. The core reasoning applied plausibility standards from Twombly and Iqbal, Rule 9(b) particularity requirements for fraud-like claims, and prior district court precedent on personal jurisdiction in similar cases brought by the same plaintiff.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved four female corrections officers employed by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections at the London Correctional Institution who sued under Title VII, alleging they were subjected to a hostile work environment based on gender and that they faced retaliation after complaining about their supervisor. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. The core reasoning was that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, failed to create a genuine issue of material fact; specifically, for the retaliation claims of two probationary plaintiffs, the warden's independent investigation into their performance broke any causal chain from the supervisor's alleged bias, preventing imputation of liability to the employer.

labor & employmentcivil rights

This case involved a prisoner, William Ridenour, who sued Ohio parole officials alleging that they misapplied state statutes regarding his murder convictions, resulting in an increased minimum parole eligibility date in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. The district court reviewed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation de novo as to dispositive matters and for clear error on nondispositive motions, then overruled the plaintiff's objections after finding insufficient evidence of any changed parole standards or guidelines that would support his claims. The court denied multiple discovery and procedural motions by the plaintiff and adopted the recommendation to grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the action in full.

criminal lawprocedurecivil rights

This case involved participants in Honda's 401(k) Savings Plan suing the company and its officers under ERISA for alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and engagement in prohibited transactions concerning plan fees and disclosures from 2002 to 2008. The court granted the Honda defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to state plausible claims because ERISA does not create implied disclosure obligations beyond those expressly set forth in the statute, consistent with precedents such as Sprague. The motion to strike the jury demand was denied as moot, and the parties' request for oral argument was denied. The analysis applied the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, accepting factual allegations as true but rejecting threadbare legal conclusions.

labor & employmentprocedure

This case involved class action claims by employees of the Columbus Police Division challenging Directive 3.07 § III(H)(1)(c), which required submission of physician notes detailing the nature of an illness or family member's illness to immediate supervisors when returning from certain sick or injury leaves. Plaintiffs alleged that the directive violated the Rehabilitation Act by mandating disclosure of confidential medical information and infringed on privacy rights protected by the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments via 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court denied the city's motion for summary judgment and motion to strike declarations, while granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. It concluded that the directive's requirements were unlawful, leading to entry of judgment on liability in favor of the plaintiff classes and issuance of a permanent injunction against enforcement. The core reasoning centered on the directive's compulsion to reveal sensitive medical details to non-medical supervisory personnel without sufficient justification under federal disability and privacy law.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved Cheri Bowman, a communications technician employed by the City of Columbus police department, who requested intermittent FMLA leave, short-term disability benefits, and workplace accommodations due to severe migraines and related symptoms. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on Bowman's federal claims under the ADA, finding that she was not an individual with a disability because her condition did not substantially limit a major life activity. The court dismissed the remaining state-law disability claim without prejudice after declining supplemental jurisdiction over it.

labor & employmentcivil rightshealthcare

The case involved a dispute between a surviving spouse (plaintiff) and the IRS over a federal tax lien assessed against her deceased husband for unpaid trust fund recovery penalties related to employment taxes. After the husband died, the plaintiff sought a certificate of nonattachment under 26 U.S.C. § 6325(e), claiming the lien on his interest in their jointly owned property with right of survivorship was extinguished, and she brought claims for damages and other relief after the IRS denied her application and she sold the property under an escrow agreement. The court granted summary judgment to the United States, holding that the lien remained attached to the property under federal tax law and was not extinguished by the husband's death, while dismissing the remaining claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to the plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

taxespropertyfederal powerprocedure

This case involved Jeffrey E. Brown, an employee of the Columbus Board of Education, who was convicted of simple assault after an arrest while on vacation. Following the conviction, Brown faced disciplinary proceedings for his absences and insubordination, leading to an offer to resign instead of termination; he resigned but later attempted to withdraw the resignation, which the board denied. Brown sued the board and supervisors alleging violations related to his employment and resignation process. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding claims such as breach of the collective bargaining agreement, due process violations, and promissory estoppel, as the actions complied with applicable procedures and no separate promises were identified.

labor & employmentprocedure

The case concerns a dispute over a 2003 settlement agreement resolving a prior patent infringement lawsuit between Star Lock and TriTeq, under which TriTeq was to escrow funds that would be released depending on the outcome of a patent reexamination proceeding. Star Lock sued for breach of the settlement and related escrow agreements after TriTeq allegedly failed to meet its obligations, while TriTeq counterclaimed for breach and sought declaratory relief. The court, applying Ohio contract law, granted Star Lock's motion for summary judgment and denied TriTeq's motion for partial summary judgment, holding that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the timing and filing date of TriTeq's reexamination request under federal regulations meant it did not trigger the conditions for fund release as required by the agreements.

business & regulatoryprocedure