Allen Vs. Isotoner Case Brief
1030 words 5 pagesAllen v. Totes/Isotoner Corporation.
123 Ohio St.3d 216, 2009-Ohio-4231
Facts of the Case: LaNisa Allen appealed the original judgment in favor of Totes/Isotoner Corporation on the issue of whether the Ohio Fair Employment Practices Act, as amended by the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, prohibits an employer from discriminating against a female employee because of or on the basis of lactation. Relevant law associated includes whether Allen established a prima facie case of “sex discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,” or whether she “was simply and plainly terminated as an employee at will for taking an unauthorized, extra break.” Allen’s original complaint was termination attributable to discrimination, based on pregnancy and related …show more content…
“A cause will become moot only when it becomes impossible for a [***627] tribunal to grant meaningful relief, even if it were to rule in favor of the party seeking relief.” Moyer, C.J, and O’Connor J. claim these indirect issues to be live, not as remote possibilities or based on controversies that may never occur. Their assertion that “lactation is a physical condition associated with pregnancy and childbirth, hence the FEPA, as amended by the Ohio PDA, prohibits discrimination against females because they are lactating” is fully discussed.
Dissent is issued by Judge Peifer, J. as he declares the question needed answered by Ohioans was not resolute. Peifer, J. claimed “the court should analyze the case by asking (1) whether the plaintiff stated a cognizable cause of action and (2) whether the facts support the alleged cause of action.” Emphasis was placed by Peifer, J. on the circumstance of unclear facts of the case such as why Allen’s unscheduled restroom breaks outside of scheduled break times were different from restroom trips made by coworkers outside of their scheduled break times. Also, Judge Peifer argued that cases should be accepted not because of how the result might affect the parties in the individual case, but because of how a holding might affect other persons similarly situated. Peifer held “employment discrimination due to lactation as unlawful pursuant to R.C. 4112.01(B), that