Taylor v. Natl. Group of Cos., Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Yitzchak E. Gold, Assistant Court Reporter. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports. Taylor v. National Group of Companies, Inc. et al. [Cite as Taylor v. Natl. Group of Cos., Inc. (1992), Ohio St.3d .] Employer and employee -- Sexual harassment -- Plaintiff may demand jury trial of her claims under R.C. 4112.99 where gravamen of claim is discrimination on the basis of sex. (No. 91-2108 -- Submitted November 9, 1992 -- Decided December 11, 1992.) On Order from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, Certifying a Question of State Law, No. C:89CV7009. Bruce Comly French, for petitioner. Manahan, Pietrykowski, Bamman & DeLaney and Glenn E. Wasielewski; Hunt, Moritz & Johnson and Jerry M. Johnson, for respondents. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, has certified the following question to us: "May the plaintiff demand a jury trial of her claims under {4112.99, where the gravamen of the claim is discrimination on the basis of sex?" The certified question is answered in the affirmative. See Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 135, 573 N.E.2d 1056; and cf. Hoops v. United Tel. Co. of Ohio (1990), 50 Ohio St.3d 97, 553 N.E.2d 252. Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Douglas, H. Brown and Resnick, JJ., concur. Holmes and Wright, JJ., concur separately. Holmes, J., concurring. Although I dissented in Elek v. Huntington Natl. Bank, and still personally adhere to the view espoused in such dissent, the policy of stare decisis prevails, and I must concur with the majority on that basis. Wright, J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
