COLUMBUS, Ohio — The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday declined to hear a workplace sexual harassment and discrimination lawsuit filed by an ex-University Hospitals police officer because her employment contract imposed a six-month limit on filing lawsuits.
The Supreme Court’s decision upholds two lower-court rulings in favor of University Hospitals and against Amanda Fayak, who claims she was subjected to gender discrimination, sexual harassment, and a hostile work environment during her two years as a UH police officer.
After two suicide attempts, Fayak was put on a medical leave of absence in April 2015. Fayak submitted a doctor’s note stating that she would be unable to return to work until July 2015, but she then remained on leave -- without any additional documentation justifying her continued absence -- until University Hospitals terminated her employment in June 2016.
Fayak filed a lawsuit against University Hospitals in September 2016 alleging sex discrimination and breach of contract, among other claims. She voluntarily withdrew that lawsuit, but refiled a lawsuit in February 2017 against University Hospitals, as well as two UH employees and several hospital police officers.
Attorneys with University Hospitals pointed to language in the employment application Fayak signed upon taking the job stating that employees only have six months to file a discrimination lawsuit after the alleged misconduct took place.
As Fayak never returned to work after April 2015, UH attorneys asserted, her lawsuits were filed at least a year after any of the actions listed in her lawsuit. They cited previous Ohio legal rulings upholding employers’ right to shorten the statute of limitations from what’s in Ohio law (which, in 2016, was six years, though a new law will soon take effect allowing only two years to file a discrimination suit)
Fayak’s attorneys pointed to rulings from federal court and other states overturning employers’ six-month time limits to file such lawsuits. Such a short time limit, they argued, would force discrimination victims to file lawsuits before they have time to properly prepare their cases.
The Supreme Court justices provided no written explanation for why they declined to hear Fayak’s appeal. However, two of the three Democratic justices voted to hear the case -- including Justice Michael P. Donnelly, who offered a written dissent.
Donnelly declined to weigh in on whether he agreed with Fayak’s arguments in her particular case. But he wrote that her case “patently and obviously presents an issue that should be addressed by this court.
Donnelly continued: “This case has implications for persons in Ohio who apply for a job. It has implications for any company seeking to protect itself from lawsuits. It has implications for every lawyer who might be consulted by an aggrieved employee. It has implications, in short, for many, many Ohioans.”