# Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission

> Ohio Supreme Court · July 15, 1987 · 31 Ohio St. 3d 222

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759831

## Case

- **Full name:** Babcock & Wilcox Company v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 15, 1987
- **Citations:** 31 Ohio St. 3d 222; 31 Ohio B. 430; 510 N.E.2d 368; 1 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1117; 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 37,880; 52 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 1790; 1987 Ohio LEXIS 318
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Douglas, George, Holmes, Locher, Mahoney, Moyer, Ninth, Sweeney, Wright
- **Cited by:** 9 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759831

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
In Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1986), 25 Ohio St. 3d 279 , 25 OBR 331, 496 N.E. 2d 478 , syllabus, we held that “[d]rug addiction and alcoholism are handicaps as defined in R.C. 4112.01(A)(13).” Since Hazlett was decided after the court of appeals issued its decision in this cause, neither of the lower courts had the benefit of that decision. Therefore, we must reverse the decision of the court of appeals which directly contradicts our holding in Hazlett and remand this matter to the trial court for reconsideration, in light of Hazlett , of the issue of whether Wirth was impermissibly rejected by B & W because of his handicap. 1
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Mahoney, George, Wright and H. Brown, JJ., concur.
Holmes, J., concurs separately.
Moyer, C.J., dissents.
Douglas, J., dissents with opinion.
Mahoney, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Sweeney, J.
George, J., of the Ninth Appellate District, sitting for Locher, J.
We do not believe that it is appropriate for us to review the record in this case since neither the court of appeals nor the trial court has reviewed the facts before the commission in light of our holding in Hazlett, supra.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6759831. Public record. Not legal advice.