Case law

Shepherd v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc.

160 F. Supp. 2d 860 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 31, 2001

In order to prevail on a claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff must establish (1) that she is disabled, (2) that she is qualified to perform the essential functions of her job with or without reasonable accommodation, and (3 … The employee must establish that a reasonable accommodation is possible and that she is qualified for the position with such reasonable accommodation. Monette v. Electronic Data Sys.

Ridenbaugh v. Long

246 F. Supp. 2d 849 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 5, 2002

Thus, there is clearly no prejudice to the Federal Defendants if the Court deems this document filed. … It is well settled that under its sovereign immunity, the United States is ordinarily immune from suit, and that it may define the conditions under which it will permit actions against it. United States v.

Harris v. BD. OF EDUC. OF COLUMBUS, OHIO

798 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jun 26, 1992

Plaintiff Harris’s prior evaluations and defendant O’Leary’s admission that Harris was a well-qualified instructor, O’Leary Depos. at 21, provides a reasonable basis to conclude that Harris was qualified for the position. … The situation here is clearly dissimilar to that in Hishon v.

Johnston v. Hamilton County Justice Center

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Oct 16, 2020

assertion of qualified immunity. … “The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable

Steele v. Nationwide Children's Hospital

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 26, 2024

was qualified. … Count IV: ADEA, Age Discrimination – Disparate Treatment Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s age discrimination claim fails because she does not establish that she was qualified for her job or that Defendant treated

Snodgrass v. Chambers Smith

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jul 24, 2024

Snodgrass seeks monetary damages and entitled to qualified immunity for his claims against them in their individual capacities. (R&R, PAGEID # 369.) … The Court agrees—the Eleventh Amendment bars his official-capacity claims, and he has not shown a constitutional violation such that qualified immunity for Defendants from their individual-capacity claims would be inapplicable

Al'Shahid v. Hudson

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2021

“The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials ‘from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … Courts use a two-prong test to resolve claims of qualified immunity. Martin v. City of Broadview Heights, 712 F.3d 951, 957 (6th Cir. 2013) (citing Austin v. Redford Twp.

McWain v. Clay Township

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 30, 2022

Qualified Immunity Clay Township argues qualified immunity shields the individual police officers and trustees from liability if they are sued in their individual capacities … “Qualified immunity shields individual government officials from liability ‘insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.

In Re Aircraft Crash Litigation Frederick, Maryland, May 6, 1981

752 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 21, 1990

In one sense, such claims are clearly related to Plaintiffs’ general negligent design claims, since the flight testing of the KC-135a, the C-135A and the EC-135N was an integral part of the process culminating in the ultimate … The Court also held that, in part because Plaintiffs’ theories of recovery had not been clearly defined, the record was not sufficiently developed to enable the Court to determine whether the section of the helicopter’s Detail

Harris v. German Township, Ohio

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 23, 2022

does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” … The Court need not, and does not, address the question of whether those rights were clearly established. 1.

Hogan v. Rent-A-Center, Inc.

228 F. Supp. 2d 802 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 23, 2002

Derringer also argues that he is entitled to summary judgment on the Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim on the basis of qualified immunity. 10 *807 For reasons which follow, the Court concludes that probable cause to arrest the Plaintiffs … Accordingly, the Court sustains Derringer’s request for summary judgment on the merits of Plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim, without deciding whether he is entitled to same on the basis of qualified immunity.

Winkle v. United States

381 F. Supp. 536 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 18, 1974

Thus, the Court is faced with the problem of reconciling the diametrically opposed principles, namely: (1) that a fee once given cannot be cut down by a subsequent clause in the will; and (2) if the language is such as to clearly … But other language of the will is such as to distinguish this instrument from the will in Krumm, supra, and establishes that this testator’s will did not devise a gift to a person indefinitely with a superadded power to dispose

Swigart v. Fifth Third Bank

288 F.R.D. 177 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Dec 28, 2012

Likewise, Plaintiffs’ counsel is qualified to handle this matter. (Id. at 18-19). … These issues will be determined based on common proof, and common questions clearly predominate in this case.

Creech v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections

District Court, S.D. Ohio · Jan 4, 2021

Defendant argues Plaintiff has not established that he is a qualified individual under the ADA and that his claim to that status based on the Social Security determination is purely conclusory. … Plaintiff relies on the disability determination of the Social Security Administration to establish that he suffers from a qualifying disability.

Otero v. Wood

316 F. Supp. 2d 612 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 7, 2004

Plaintiff asserts that direct firing of a knee knocker round from less than 50 feet (the distance between her and the *621 SWAT formation at the time she was shot was approximately 42 feet) clearly constitutes excessive force … Though Defendant Brintlinger does not claim qualified immunity, the Court notes that he would not be so entitled because his actions, if they were as Plaintiff alleges, violated a clearly established right of which a reasonable

Leach v. Newport Yellow Cab, Inc.

628 F. Supp. 293 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Aug 22, 1985

It is well established that one is liable for its own negligence in engaging or retaining an incompetent or careless independent contractor. Mooney v. … It is only in the last eight months that the court has totally abrogated both parental immunity and spousal immunity. Shearer v. Shearer, 18 Ohio St.3d 94 , 480 N.E.2d 388 (1985), overruling, Bonkowsky v.

Brown v. BKW Drywall Supply, Inc.

305 F. Supp. 2d 814 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 20, 2004

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, the plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he is disabled; (2) that he is otherwise qualified for the job, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) that he suffered … As demonstrated above, many medical conditions do not qualify as disabilities for purposes of the ADA.

In Re Gribben

84 B.R. 494 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Mar 24, 1988

On the other hand, the pensions covered by ERISA are privately established and privately funded. See In re Graham, 726 F.2d at 1274 . … The Court thus concludes that Congress did not intend to include ERISA-qualified plans within § 522(b)(2)(A).

Bush v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

227 F. Supp. 2d 780 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 6, 2002

To establish a prima facie claim of racial discrimination under Title VII, Bush must show that she (1) is a member of a protected class, (2) was qualified for the job from which she was demoted, (3) suffered an adverse employment … H) which clearly demonstrates that the report was not filed until three weeks after the date of Merical’s injury.

City of Dayton v. A.R. Environmental, Inc.

886 F. Supp. 2d 775 · District Court, S.D. Ohio · May 21, 2012

§ 1985(3) claim, Penland must demonstrate: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities … While he does reference all of these civil rights statutes, the discrimination counterclaims are not clearly set out in Penland's pro se pleadings.