• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Civ Rule 60 Federal and Ohio

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Please don't take offense at the wording of Litigator's post. His delivery of information tends to be the same for everyone. Tact is apparently something he never learned.

I am afraid you would have benefited greatly from attorney assistance when you first were contemplating filing suit. I see few options left to you, based strictly on what you have posted here, but you could/should seek out a personal review of all of your court documents, from an attorney in your area, to better determine where you now stand legally.

Good luck.
Thank you
 


FlyingRon

Senior Member
Understand, that you claim you want a review of the judgment because of new evidence. The problem is that there's no "evidence" in making the decision. They used a standard where they graciously assumed that everything you said in your complaint was true. Based on that assumption, they found that you hadn't stated anything for which relief could be granted. There's no "additional evidence" that would change that.

Second, your last case appears to have been dismissed because it was a refiling of the same claim that had already been decided at both the federal and state levels. You don't get to just keep swinging at the same issues.

Furhter, the fact that you voluntarily withdrew makes it improper to appeal the granting of that withdrawal.

You will need an attorney, but it seems that you have no cause to refile on an already (twice) decided case, regardless of what "evidence" you may have. Now if you're still hell bent on getting a pound of flesh out of Bob Evans, you might find a DIFFERENT act than what has already been decided (if that is what your "evidence" is about). Still, understand that you can only sue for your own injuries, not perceived injuries that happen to others.
 
Understand, that you claim you want a review of the judgment because of new evidence. The problem is that there's no "evidence" in making the decision. They used a standard where they graciously assumed that everything you said in your complaint was true. Based on that assumption, they found that you hadn't stated anything for which relief could be granted. There's no "additional evidence" that would change that.

Second, your last case appears to have been dismissed because it was a refiling of the same claim that had already been decided at both the federal and state levels. You don't get to just keep swinging at the same issues.

Furhter, the fact that you voluntarily withdrew makes it improper to appeal the granting of that withdrawal.

You will need an attorney, but it seems that you have no cause to refile on an already (twice) decided case, regardless of what "evidence" you may have. Now if you're still hell bent on getting a pound of flesh out of Bob Evans, you might find a DIFFERENT act than what has already been decided (if that is what your "evidence" is about). Still, understand that you can only sue for your own injuries, not perceived injuries that happen to others.
The different act is gender discrimination. I didn't argue it before because I didn't know it happened. I filed a new state case against Bob Evans after I learned ( but hadn't confirmed it) of it. I voluntarily dismissed it. In their Motion for Summary Judgment they argued that the only new cause of action that I brought was that of gender discrimination. They argued to that point that I could have brought that previously. I couldn't have legally alleged something that I didn't know happened. That is where I am at motioning Rule 60. I didn't have that evidence prior, only post dismissal. It's a reach considering I knew of the claim with the 28 days post verdict, unfortunately I was unable to confirm the claim until two months later.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
I am also going to point out that, without having read the case, "discrimination" and "retaliation" are sadly misused and misunderstood words that few people use correctly in employment law. Not all discrimination is illegal and even less retaliation is. Whether yours was or was not illegal is not something I'm prepared to state but I do know that calling something discrimination or retaliation does not make it automatically illegal.
 
I am also going to point out that, without having read the case, "discrimination" and "retaliation" are sadly misused and misunderstood words that few people use correctly in employment law. Not all discrimination is illegal and even less retaliation is. Whether yours was or was not illegal is not something I'm prepared to state but I do know that calling something discrimination or retaliation does not make it automatically illegal.
I actually found that to be the case throughout the process. Ohio is an "at will" state (right to work). Without being in a protected class an employee can be fired, just because.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
At will and right to work are two different concepts and mean entirely different things. 49 out of 50 states, including Ohio, are employment at will states, meaning that you can be fired for any reason that does not violate the law. 27 states, NOT including Ohio, are right to work states, meaning that you cannot be forced to join a union to get work.

You also apparently do not completely understand discrimination laws. Everyone in the US is a member of at least three so-called protected classes. We all have a race, we all have a gender and we all have a national origin. It takes more than being a member of a "protected class" to avoid a termination. You cannot be fired (or adversely treated) BECAUSE of your membership in such a class, but you can be fired (or adversely treated) in spite of it. No matter what your race, religion, national origin, sex, age, etc., you can be fired "just because" - you just can't be fired BECAUSE you are black-white-asian-christian-jewish-hispanic-male-female-what-have-you.
 
At will and right to work are two different concepts and mean entirely different things. 49 out of 50 states, including Ohio, are employment at will states, meaning that you can be fired for any reason that does not violate the law. 27 states, NOT including Ohio, are right to work states, meaning that you cannot be forced to join a union to get work.

You also apparently do not completely understand discrimination laws. Everyone in the US is a member of at least three so-called protected classes. We all have a race, we all have a gender and we all have a national origin. It takes more than being a member of a "protected class" to avoid a termination. You cannot be fired (or adversely treated) BECAUSE of your membership in such a class, but you can be fired (or adversely treated) in spite of it. No matter what your race, religion, national origin, sex, age, etc., you can be fired "just because" - you just can't be fired BECAUSE you are black-white-asian-christian-jewish-hispanic-male-female-what-have-you.
with regard to gender. I was disciplined for solicitation, no female had been disciplined for solicitation despite numerous violations of the No Solicitation Policy of the company. I didn't know this when filing the action. I only learned of it after the action(s) had been dismissed.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
That's not in and of itself enough to prove gender discrimination. Not by a long shot.

And how did you "learn" it anyway?
 
That's not in and of itself enough to prove gender discrimination. Not by a long shot.

And how did you "learn" it anyway?
I was speaking to a former assistant manager about the case being dismissed, specifically about the Judge ruling that the Court opined that my allegations were true and yet the case was dismissed. The conversation eventually turned into how could I as a male be disciplined for something females had for years gotten away with, solicitation.

Now, I didn't feel I could take his claim as gospel and seek a new trial within 15 days I had remaining in the 28 day period. That being said I was confident that I could file a new suit alleging gender discrimination and by the time they answered I would have confirmation from a more authoritative management position. That didn't happen and so I had no choice by to voluntarily withdraw the action. Two months after the initial claim by that assistant manager I received confirmation from a former General Manager of multiple locations. He too never once in his tenure was aware of any female employee being disciplined for solicitation as I was.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
But discipline is rarely if ever made public. The fact that these two managers are "not aware" of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What's more, there is more to a valid gender discrimination claim than that. There is no requirement that all employees be treated identically. It's okay to treat employees differently on the basis of the position they hold, the length of time they've been with the company, their overall record, and pretty much anything else except the characteristics we've already mentioned. Now, if you could show that all males were disciplined where no females were, that might mean something. But with yourself as a single sample of the male sex, you'd need to be looking at overall records, length of tenure, job positions, and comparing how they were treated in relation to each other. And it's quite, quite legal for an employer to say, "That's it. I've been letting people get away with this for far too long. Next person is going to be hung out to dry".

It would be up to you to show that you were disciplined BECAUSE OF your gender and not IN SPITE of it.

If, of course, you hadn't already gone past the SOL to take any action.
 
But discipline is rarely if ever made public. The fact that these two managers are "not aware" of it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

What's more, there is more to a valid gender discrimination claim than that. There is no requirement that all employees be treated identically. It's okay to treat employees differently on the basis of the position they hold, the length of time they've been with the company, their overall record, and pretty much anything else except the characteristics we've already mentioned. Now, if you could show that all males were disciplined where no females were, that might mean something. But with yourself as a single sample of the male sex, you'd need to be looking at overall records, length of tenure, job positions, and comparing how they were treated in relation to each other. And it's quite, quite legal for an employer to say, "That's it. I've been letting people get away with this for far too long. Next person is going to be hung out to dry".

It would be up to you to show that you were disciplined BECAUSE OF your gender and not IN SPITE of it.

If, of course, you hadn't already gone past the SOL to take any action.
Thank you for the clarity.

Cheers
 

Eekamouse

Senior Member
What exactly were you trying to sell at work? In a previous post you stated that women were allowed to sell Girl Scout cookies or similar school-based fund raising items -- is that what you were attempting to sell?
I think he was trying to sell the idea of unionizing to his co-workers so they could join him on his soapbox and tell the world how Bob Evans done him wrong.
 

FlyingRon

Senior Member
Actually, if they were sanctioning him for union activities, he might actually have a legal claim. The problem is that he doesn't seem to understand what is an actionable claim and what isn't, which is why his suits don't get very far procedurally. The court doesn't even have to address whether his stories are true or not because even if they were, they don't support what he's trying to sue for.
 

cbg

I'm a Northern Girl
And the impression I have is that the SOL has run out for just about everything he's trying to do.
 

Sponsored Ad

Top