Patrick M. McGrath

This case involves students at Kent State University who filed a class action alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment after the university switched all classes to remote learning and restricted campus access starting in March 2020 due to COVID-19, without refunding tuition or mandatory fees paid for in-person instruction and services. The trial court certified a class of undergraduate students who paid instructional, general, or non-resident fees for the Spring 2020 semester. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the certification, ruling that the trial court did not perform the required rigorous analysis of Civ.R. 23 factors such as commonality and predominance. The appellate court found that the trial court improperly assumed injury from the shift to remote learning without assessing whether common evidence could establish economic harm for all class members or whether individualized inquiries would predominate, and it remanded for further proceedings.

procedure

This case arose from a paternity action filed by M.H. regarding minor child S.K., in which the child's paternal grandmother E.H. sought to be joined as a party and obtain court-ordered companionship time while M.H. was incarcerated. The trial court granted E.H. party status and visitation rights after a magistrate's hearing that considered testimony on the child's best interests, family relationships, and E.H.'s health. On appeal by the child's mother B.K., the Tenth District Court of Appeals sustained the challenge to the visitation order, finding error in the trial court's handling of grandparent companionship time under applicable Ohio statutes, while upholding the notices required by R.C. 3109.051 and other rulings. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for a new determination on the visitation issue.

family law

The case involved two African-American employees of the Ohio Department of Youth Services alleging racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under R.C. Chapter 4112 based on incidents at a shared IT help desk with employees from the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, including issues with overtime, leave approvals, and eventual involuntary disability separations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Court of Claims' grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework and held that, even assuming plaintiffs could establish a prima facie case, they failed to offer evidence showing the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reasons were pretext for discrimination.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved plaintiff Kevin Tharp suing Hillcrest Baptist Church and Pastor Timothy Lee for defamation, libel, slander, invasion of privacy, false-light invasion of privacy, breach of confidentiality, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, clergy malpractice, and related claims. The suit stemmed from a 2017 private church meeting where Pastor Lee confronted Tharp about his admitted past sexual molestation of multiple minors, including a church attendee, after the victim recognized him decades later. The trial court granted the defendants' partial motion for judgment on the pleadings and motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the church's statements were protected by qualified privilege without evidence of actual malice, that the clergy malpractice claim was redundant with other tort claims, and that no viable causes of action existed under the facts.

torts & liabilityreligious liberty

The case involved a surviving spouse seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Industrial Commission of Ohio to grant a scheduled loss of use award for her husband's total loss of use of his arms, legs, sight, and hearing following a fatal workplace accident where he was pinned under machinery, leading to cardiac arrest and anoxic brain injury. The Commission denied the award for the sensory losses, finding they resulted from brain damage rather than direct injury to the organs themselves. The court denied the writ, determining that the Commission's decision was supported by evidence, including medical opinions attributing the losses to the brain's inability to process signals due to anoxic injury, consistent with prior precedent that such losses are not compensable under the relevant statute without direct organ injury.

labor & employment

In Schultz v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., contract employees Nancy Schultz and Andrea Hawley sued the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction for negligence and loss of consortium, alleging they suffered injuries from exposure to unknown toxic fumes while working in the pharmacy at the Ohio Reformatory for Women on February 4, 2010. After a bench trial, a magistrate in the Court of Claims found in favor of the defendant, determining that the plaintiffs had not established negligence or causation through sufficient evidence, including expert testimony on the unidentified substance. The Court of Claims overruled the plaintiffs' objections to the magistrate's decision, and the Tenth Appellate District affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trier of fact properly weighed the evidence and credibility of witnesses.

torts & liability