Brill v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Ohio » Court of Claims » 2001 » Brill v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles

State: Ohio

Court: Ohio Southern District Court

Docket No: 2001-Ohio-3959

Case Date: 12/27/2001

Plaintiff: Brill

Defendant: Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles

Preview:[Cite as Brill v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2001-Ohio-3959.]

IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

CAROL BRILL Plaintiff v. BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES Defendant

: : : : CASE NO. 98-04590 DECISION Judge Russell Leach

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

Plaintiff, an employee of defendant at all times relevant hereto, brought this action pursuant to R.C. 4112.01 et. seq., alleging, inter alia, that she was sexually harassed by her supervisor, Mark Perry. The issues in the case were bifurcated

and subsequent to the liability trial the court issued a decision finding that plaintiff had been sexually harassed by her supervisor and that defendant was vicariously liable for such conduct. The case was then tried to the court on the sole issue

of damages. In closing argument, plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that placing a value on the emotional and psychological effect of the harassment is a difficult task. Indeed, review of R.C. 4112.01,

et. seq., and the relevant case law, provides little guidance to the court. Plaintiff maintains that the conduct she endured in

this case was serious, egregious, predatory and well beyond "garden variety" sexual harassment. In contrast, defendant

argues that the period of time involved was relatively minor,

that the psychological impact was mild and temporary, and that this action does not represent the "worst case scenario" in a sexual harassment context. Upon consideration of all of the evidence and arguments submitted, the court finds that plaintiff was subjected to extreme, debilitating sexual harassment from November 1996 to March of 1997. While the period of time may appear to be

relatively short, it does not diminish the severity of the conduct that plaintiff endured. Likewise, the fact that certain

conduct occurred only one or two times does diminish its impact upon plaintiff. Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the court concludes that plaintiff is entitled to compensation in the amount of $50,000. Judgment is therefore rendered for plaintiff

in that amount, plus $25 for the cost of filing this action.

___________________________________ RUSSELL LEACH Judge

[Cite as Brill v. Ohio Bur. of Motor Vehicles, 2001-Ohio-3959.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO

CAROL BRILL Plaintiff v. BUREAU OF MOTOR VEHICLES Defendant

: : : : CASE NO. 98-04590 JUDGMENT ENTRY Judge Russell Leach

: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

This case was tried to the court on the sole issue of damages. The court has considered the evidence, and for the

reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $50,025 which includes the filing fee paid by plaintiff. costs are assessed against defendant. Court

The clerk shall serve upon

all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. ___________________________________ RUSSELL LEACH Judge Entry cc: Dennis P. Mulvihill 610 Skylight Office Tower 1660 West Second Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1454 John P. Reichley Michael J. Valentine 65 East State St., 16th Fl. Columbus, Ohio 43215 Attorney for Plaintiff

Assistant Attorneys General

LH/cmd
Filed 12-27-2001 Jr. Vol. 690, Pg. 196 To S.C. reporter 2-4-2002

Download 98-04590-0.pdf