Ohio Senate Bill 1 of 2025, the Advance Ohio Higher Education Act, prohibits state colleges and universities from mandating diversity, equity, and inclusion training, while affirming that these institutions must provide equal opportunity regardless of race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. For more information see the Ohio Department of Higher Education Senate Bill 1 Information page.
Two former employees of the defendant were subjected to repeated instances of sexual harassment by the clinic’s patients. The employees alleged that they complained to the defendant about the conduct, but he failed to take any corrective action. They filed suit in the Clark County Court of Common Pleas alleging sexual harassment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that Ohio law did not recognize such a claim based on the conduct of non-employees. In Anania v. Daubenspeck Chiropractic, 129 Ohio App.
Ohio House Bill 531 (2025), known as Braden’s Law, criminalizes sexual extortion, defined as threatening to release or distribute private images, as a third-degree felony, subject to enhancement to a first-degree felony under certain aggravating circumstances. The law also requires courts to consider parental requests for access to the phones of deceased minors.
In Edwards v. Ohio Institute of Cardiac Care, 170 Ohio App.3d 619 (2007), the plaintiff, a scheduler, received frequent inappropriate emails and physical contact from her supervisor, including touching on the shoulder and lower back. After she reported the behavior, she began receiving tardiness notices and was terminated, allegedly for changing clothes at work before the Fourth of July weekend. She sued for sexual harassment and retaliation in the Greene County Court of Common Pleas. A jury found in her favor on harassment but for the employer on retaliation.
In Felton v. Felton, 79 Ohio St.3d 34 (1997), the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the issuance of a civil protective order based on testimony describing violent behavior by the appellant’s husband, which led her to fear for her life. After she filed criminal domestic violence charges, the county court granted a temporary protection order. The Court held that testimony about the husband’s past violence supported the issuance of the order and that a prior dissolution decree prohibiting harassment did not prevent further protective relief.
In the case In re Doe, a juvenile filed a petition in the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas, Juvenile Division, seeking a judicial bypass to obtain an abortion without parental notification. The trial court denied the request, finding that she lacked sufficient maturity and information to make the decision independently. The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the juvenile was mature and well-informed enough to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy.
In Jones v. MTD Consumer Group, Inc., 32 N.E.3d 1030 (2015), the plaintiff was terminated after engaging in threatening and inappropriate behavior toward a former romantic partner who worked at the same company. The coworker reported that the plaintiff made a menacing gesture toward her and her new boyfriend outside of her home, and continued to direct derogatory remarks at her in the workplace. Following his dismissal, he filed suit in the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, alleging "reverse gender discrimination" and negligent retention.
In Kroh v. Continental General Tire, Inc., 92 Ohio St.3d 30 (2001), the plaintiff alleged that her employer discriminated against her on the basis of sex, in violation of R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.99.
In Lascu v. Apex Paper Box Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 2011), the plaintiff, a longtime employee with nearly thirty years of service, was terminated as part of a company-wide reduction in force. She filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas alleging gender discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed.
In Moe v. Yost (2025), the plaintiffs/appellants are two transgender adolescents and their families, challenging House Bill 68, also known as the SAFE Act, which restricts minors in Ohio from gaining access to gender-affirming care and services. The defendants/appellees are the Attorney General of Ohio, et al.
