You are on page 1of 5

Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 1 of 5 PAGEID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

KAREN LEISRING : CASE NO: 1:18-cv-698


:
Plaintiff, : JUDGE
:
v. :
:
HAMILTON COUNTY CLERK OF :
COURTS, :
:
and : PLAINITFF’S COMPLAINT AND JURY
: DEMAND
AFTAB PUREVAL, IN HIS OFFICIAL :
CAPACITY AS CLERK OF :
HAMILTON COUNTY MUNICIPAL :
COURT, :
:
Defendants. :
:
:

COMES NOW Plaintiff Karen Leisring, by and through her undersigned counsel, and for

her Complaint against Defendants Hamilton County Clerk of Courts and Aftab Pureval, in his

official capacity as Clerk of Hamilton County Municipal Court, alleges as follows:

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff Karen Leisring is a citizen of Indiana, and is employed by Defendant Hamilton

County Clerk of Courts as an Assignment/Origination Clerk for the Municipal Civil

Division.

2. Defendant Hamilton County Clerk of Courts is the official record keeper and agent of

Hamilton County’s justice system, and is located at 1000 Main St., Cincinnati, OH 45202.

3. By statute, the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts serves as the Clerk of the Hamilton

County Municipal Court. O.R.C. 1901.31(A)(1)(b).

4. Defendant Aftab Pureval is the Clerk of Hamilton County Municipal Court, and is sued
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 2

here in his official capacity.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint because she is asserting a claim

under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.

6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim as it shares a

common nucleus of operative facts, and arises out of the same transaction or occurrence,

as Plaintiff’s federal claim.

7. Venue in this Court is proper, as the events and circumstances giving rise to Plaintiff’s

claims occurred in this judicial district.

FACTS

8. Plaintiff is 66 years old and has been an employee of Defendants for five years. She has

been employed as an Assignment/Origination Clerk in the Municipal Civil division since

2017.

9. Prior to her tenure with Defendants, Plaintiff had 15 years of experience in human

resources, including substantial supervisory experience. Her position prior to working for

Defendants was as an HR Generalist for Lasik Plus.

10. In September 2017, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Jerry Poland, took a leave from his position as

Supervisor of Case Management. He ultimately did not return to the position.

11. Plaintiff served as interim Supervisor while Mr. Poland was out, and until a permanent

replacement could be hired.

12. In her position as interim Supervisor, Plaintiff supervised five full-time employees and one

part-time employee.

13. From around March 15 to March 20, 2018, Defendant Hamilton County Clerk of Courts

2
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 3

accepted applications for the Supervisor position Jerry Poland had left, and which Plaintiff

had been performing on an interim basis for approximately seven months.

14. Plaintiff timely applied for the Supervisor position.

15. Plaintiff was recommended for the position by Jerry Poland himself.

16. On or around March 29, 2018, Plaintiff was interviewed for the position.

17. During her interview, Plaintiff’s interviewers began inquiring about how long she would

continue to work if she was hired for the position.

18. It was unlawful for Defendants to inquire into this.

19. The question indicated that the ages of the applicants were a consideration for Defendants

in deciding whom to hire.

20. Plaintiff did not believe this was an appropriate or legal question to ask, but felt under the

circumstances she had to give a response, and told her interviewers she planned to work

for three more years.

21. Defendants unlawfully considered Plaintiff’s answer to this illegal question in making their

hiring decision, and they held the answer against her in their final decision.

22. Despite her prior experience, her established rapport within the department, her seven

months of successfully performing the position on an interim basis, and the

recommendation of preceding Supervisor Jerry Poland, Plaintiff was not promoted to the

position of Supervisor.

23. Instead, on April 5, 2018, Katherine Smith, a 28-year old employee of the Clerk’s Common

Pleas Issue Desk, was awarded the position.

24. Ms. Smith had no experience with the work of Plaintiff’s department.

25. Ms. Smith’s experience and qualifications were clearly inferior to Plaintiff’s.

3
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF THE AGE DISCRIMINATION IN

EMPLYOMENT ACT

26. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

27. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ decision not to promote her to the position of

supervisor was motivated by her age, and was in violation of the ADEA.

28. As a result of Defendants’ intentional age discrimination, Plaintiff has been damaged in

the form of the loss of the Supervisor position, and the consequent lost wages and benefits.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION: VIOLATION OF O.R.C. 4112.14

29. Plaintiff incorporates the preceding paragraphs as if fully restated herein.

30. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ decision to deny Plaintiff promotion to the

position of Supervisor violated O.R.C. 4112.14, which prohibits discrimination in any job

opening against any applicant aged 40 or older who is physically able to perform the duties

and otherwise meets the requirements of the job.

31. Plaintiff was over the age of 40, and was fully qualified for the Supervisor position.

32. Defendants, however, awarded the position to a substantially younger applicant.

33. Defendants’ decision was made on the basis of Plaintiff’s age.

34. As a result of Defendants’ intentional discrimination, Plaintiff has been damaged as

hereinabove described.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as

follows:

1. An Order requiring Defendants to promote Plaintiff to the position of Supervisor.

2. An award of backpay/lost wages incurred as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory

actions.

4
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 5

3. An award of front pay if promotion to the position of Supervisor is deemed not to be

feasible.

4. An award of liquidated damages in an amount equal to Plaintiff’s lost wages and

benefits.

5. An award of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, court costs, and expenses of litigation incurred

in the prosecution of this action.

6. All other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.

/s/ Stephen E. Imm


___________________________________
Stephen E. Imm (0040068)
Matthew S. Okiishi (0096706)
FINNEY LAW FIRM
4270 Ivy Pointe Boulevard, Suite 225
Cincinnati, Ohio 45245
stephen@finneylawfirm.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all claims and issues so triable.

/s/ Stephen E. Imm


_______________________
Stephen E. Imm

You might also like