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.
The plaintiff-appellant, an employee of Totes/Isotoner Corporation, had for two weeks taken breaks without her employer’s knowledge to lactate. After the defendant fired her “for her failure to follow directions,” the plaintiff filed suit alleging wrongful termination on the basis of her pregnancy. The Butler County Court of Common Pleas granted summary judgment in favor of her employer, and the Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed.
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.
The plaintiff-appellants, three female dining services department employees, sued Oberlin College, the defendant alleging that they suffered various acts of sexual harassment at the hands of the executive chef of the private contractor, Bon Appetit, that operated the dining facilities.
The plaintiff-appellant, a transgender police officer, applied to be promoted to sergeant within the Cincinnati Police Department. The plaintiff passed the sergeants exam but failed a rigorous training program and was denied promotion. The plaintiff sued the City of Cincinnati, alleging that the denial of her promotion was due to sex-based discrimination and her failure to conform to male sex stereotypes, such as wearing makeup, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
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.
Capital Care is a medical facility that offers abortion services. It had been licensed for years to operate as an ambulatory surgical facility. An Ohio statute was passed that required all abortion providers to have a license from the Director of the Ohio Department of Health, and such licenses required providers to have a written transfer agreement with a local hospital. Capital Care could not obtain a transfer agreement with a local hospital, but had such an agreement with a nearby hospital in Ann Arbor, Michigan, yet was denied a license.
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.
The plaintiff -appellant was the “head golf professional” at the Congress Lake Golf Club. Despite her formidable golfing pedigree, the club’s board of directors requested her resignation, ostensibly because of her inability to manage various golf programs. She sued the defendant for sex discrimination in the Stark County Court of Common Pleas. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, but the Court of Appeals of Ohio reversed, finding that there was an issue of fact as to whether the golf club’s proffered legitimate reason for her termination were pretextual.
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.
