Martin v. Block Commc'ns, Inc.

2017 Ohio 1474

James Martin Appellant v. Block Communications, Inc., et al. Appellees

Court of Appeals No. L-16-1213

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY

April 21, 2017

Trial Court No. CI0201602367

DECISION AND JUDGMENT

James Martin, pro se.

Mathew B. Beredo and Keith Wilkowski, for appellees.

MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, James Martin, appeals the September 13, 2016 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas denying him leave to file an amended complaint and granting defendants-appellees', Block Communications, Inc. and Buckeye Cablevision, Inc., Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. Background

{¶ 2} Martin is a former employee of Block Communications and Buckeye Cablevision (collectively "Block"). On April 15, 2016, he filed a pro se complaint in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas alleging that Block committed discriminatory employment practices in violation of R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.05 and 42 U.S.C. 1981 and 1983. To support his claims Martin alleged the following facts in his complaint.

{¶ 3} Martin began working part-time as a technical support specialist for Block in October 2014. During that time he also attended classes at Owens Community College and was an active political candidate and member of the Lucas County Republican Party. Martin claims to have told Block about his ongoing schooling and political activities during the hiring process. In February 2015, Block laid off about half of its technical support specialists and moved Martin into a full-time position to fill staffing gaps. Other employees were offered severance, early retirement, relocation, or layoff with the option to be rehired.

{¶ 4} Martin then began working a full-time schedule that required him to work six days a week, Monday through Friday from 5:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and Saturday from noon to 11:30 p.m., with the potential for mandatory overtime on Sundays. Block held a schedule bid in April 2015. Employees were able to bid on their preferred shifts; schedules were then awarded based on performance and seniority. After the bid Martinwas moved to a four-day work week with 10-hour shifts, Wednesday through Saturday from noon to 10:30 p.m. with the potential for mandatory overtime.

{¶ 5} On April 28, 2015, Martin received a semi-annual performance evaluation. Although the evaluation contained positive comments about Martin's job performance, his supervisor also noted that Martin was late to work six times in his first six months of employment. His supervisor warned him that "[he] does need to make sure to arrive to work on time each shift." One month later, Martin failed to appear for a scheduled shift and was disciplined under Block's progressive discipline policy. At that time, he received an "Oral Reminder," which is Step 1 of Block's Customer Operations Disciplinary Practice.

{¶ 6} Block held another schedule bid in July 2015. Martin's disciplinary record left him ineligible to choose from many of the available shifts. He claimed that the shifts from which he could choose were "equally unfavorable" to him. In August 2015 he was moved to a five-day work week with eight-hour shifts, Thursday through Saturday from 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m.

{¶ 7} Martin was unhappy with his new schedule and requested that management either return him to a four-day work schedule or allow him to go back to working part-time so he could finish his college classes. His direct supervisor denied the request, but stated that he could resign and then return when he finished his studies. Martin was not interested in this option and appealed his supervisor's decision to the Customer Operations Manager. The manager denied Martin's appeal, stating that Block could nothonor Martin's request because the department was understaffed. Martin's schedule remained the same.

{¶ 8} Martin's tardiness problems continued in August and September 2015, leading to further disciplinary actions. Block gave Martin a "Written Reminder," Step 2 of the disciplinary process, and placed Martin on a performance improvement plan through the end of October. He claimed that a supervisor told him the performance improvement plan was "pointless" because it dealt with tardiness issues rather than job performance issues. On or about October 15, 2015, Martin again asked to be moved to a part-time schedule. Block denied his request even though it had recruited new technical support employees by this time. On November 17, 2015, Martin arrived over six hours late for a shift, allegedly because he was unaware that his regular work hours had been changed. Block then escalated its disciplinary measures to Step 3 of its policy and issued Martin a "Written Warning."

{¶ 9} During the last week of December 2015, Martin requested personal leave to visit his sick step-grandmother. Block denied the request, telling Martin he would need a doctor's note to take personal leave. Martin claimed he could not obtain a doctor's note because his step-grandmother lived in Oklahoma. Martin also alleged that he had a sufficient personal leave balance to cover the requested time off.

{¶ 10} After this incident, Block requested that Martin meet with the human resources department. On January 5, 2016, Martin met with a Block human resources representative and a technical support supervisor. At that meeting, Block asked Martin toresign from the company. When he declined, Block terminated his employment effective January 6, 2016. Martin alleged that he was not paid for hours worked on December 29, 2015, and did not receive payment for his unused vacation time. Martin was also denied unemployment benefits because Block claimed to have terminated him with just cause.

{¶ 11} On April 15, 2016, Martin filed his initial complaint against Block, claiming that Block unlawfully discriminated against him in violation of R.C. 4112.02 and 4112.05, and violated his equal protection rights under 42 U.S.C. 1981 and his constitutional rights under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleged that he was aware of current Block employees who had requested "more accommodating" schedules and were not denied. He also alleged that Block's timekeeping records were inaccurate. Martin further claimed that Block used him as an example to exert psychological control over the rest of the technical support specialists. He blamed Block for loss of enjoyment of life, loss of personal and professional opportunities, and mental anguish. Martin claimed to have suffered damages by losing promotion opportunities, wages and earnings, and educational and professional advancement.

{¶ 12} On May 13, 2016, Block filed a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. It argued that the R.C. 4112.02 and 42 U.S.C. 1981 claims both failed because Martin did not allege that he is a member of a protected class or that Block's action were motivated by Martin's membership in a protected class; his R.C. 4112.05 claim failed because the statute relates to filing a case with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, not a common pleas court; and his 42 U.S.C.1983 claim failed because he did not allege that Block was a state actor or acting under color of state law. On May 18, 2016, Martin filed a "Motion to Strike and Statement of Reasons for Opposing Defendant's [sic] Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Civ. R [sic] 12(B)(6)." Block filed its reply on May 27, 2016.

{¶ 13} Martin then filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint on June 13, 2016, which was 31 days after Block filed its Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion. He did not file the proposed amended complaint with his motion, but he submitted a copy of the unfiled pleading to the courtroom. Martin removed the federal law claims and the claim under R.C. 4112.05 from the proposed amended complaint, but retained his claim under R.C. 4112.02. The proposed amended complaint also contained the following additional factual allegations: Martin is a white male; Block allowed another technical support specialist—an "Arabic male"—to remain on a part-time schedule at an unspecified time during Block's restructuring; and Block informed Martin at the beginning of his performance improvement plan in October 2015 that he would be terminated if he was late for work again. The proposed amended complaint also alleged that the performance improvement plan was retaliatory and discriminatory because it "further complicated [his] position." Finally, Martin amended his damages to include loss of credit, loss of education, back pay, front pay, emotional stress, loss of enjoyment of life, suffering, and humiliation.

{¶ 14} On July 14, 2016, while the motion for leave to amend was pending, Martin filed a second memorandum in opposition to Block's Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion todismiss. In it he argued that Block's motion should be denied because the proposed amended complaint replaced the original complaint and met the requirements for pleading an unlawful discriminatory acts claim. Block filed another brief in support of its motion on July 20, 2016.

{¶ 15} On August 17, 2016, the trial court filed an order related to Martin's motion for leave to amend. It stated that "the attached copy of [Martin's] proposed Amended Complaint shall be filed with the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint as an exhibit, deemed submitted as of June 13, 2016, and held until ruling on [Martin's] Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint." Martin, however, never filed the proposed amended complaint or otherwise placed it in the record.

{¶ 16} The trial court issued its opinion and judgment entry on September 13, 2016. It found that Martin failed to amend his complaint within 28 days after Block filed its Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss and, therefore, Martin could not amend his complaint without leave of court under Civ.R. 15(A). The court then denied leave to amend after finding that the proposed amended complaint would not cure the...