Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs. , 2024 Ohio 4701 ( 2024 )

[Cite as Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health & Addiction Servs., 2024-Ohio-4701.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
Tony Moody, :
Plaintiff-Appellant, :
No. 24AP-144
v. : (Ct. of Cl. No. 2019-01146JD)
Ohio Department of Mental Health and : (REGULAR CALENDAR)
Addiction Services,
:
Defendant-Appellee.
:
D E C I S I O N
Rendered on September 26, 2024
On brief: William J. O’Malley, for appellant. Argued:
William J. O’Malley.
On brief: Dave Yost, Attorney General, and Eric A. Walker,
for appellee. Argued: Eric A. Walker.
APPEAL from the Court of Claims of Ohio
LUPER SCHUSTER, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Tony Moody, appeals from a judgment of the Court of
Claims of Ohio in favor of defendant-appellee, Ohio Department of Mental Health and
Addiction Services (“ODMHAS”), as to Moody’s retaliation claim. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} Moody was born in Sierra Leone, immigrated to the United States in 2003,
and became a naturalized citizen in 2017. In 2013, Moody began his employment with
No. 24AP-144 2
ODMHAS as a Therapeutic Program Worker at Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare (“Twin
Valley”) in Columbus, Ohio.
{¶ 3} In December 2019, Moody filed a complaint against ODMHAS in the Court
of Claims, alleging federal and state law race and national origin discrimination claims, and
a state law retaliation claim. In November 2020, ODMHAS moved for summary judgment
on all claims. The Court of Claims granted ODMHAS’s motion, concluding that Moody
failed to establish any genuine issue of material fact as to any of his claims, and that
ODMHAS was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on all claims. Moody appealed. This
court affirmed the Court of Claims’ grant of summary judgment in favor of ODMHAS on
Moody’s race and national origin discrimination claims, but it reversed the grant of
summary judgment on Moody’s retaliation claim. Moody v. Ohio Dept. of Mental Health
& Addiction Servs., 10th Dist. No. 21AP-159, 2021-Ohio-4578. As to the retaliation claim,
this court found that Moody submitted evidence in support of a prima facie case, ODMHAS
presented a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for its action, and Moody demonstrated a
genuine issue of material fact as to whether ODMHAS’s proffered explanation was merely
a pretext for retaliation. Id. at ¶ 46. Accordingly, this court remanded the matter for further
proceedings. Id.
{¶ 4} On remand, Moody’s retaliation claim was tried before a magistrate. As to
this claim, the dispute centered on the incident reporting policies for employees at Twin
Valley, namely when and how the employees were required to report incidents. ODMHAS
asserted adverse employment actions were taken against Moody because he failed to
comply with incident reporting policies. Conversely, Moody alleged this explanation was
pretextual because he did not violate Twin Valley’s incident reporting policies. Based on
her consideration of the evidence presented at trial, the magistrate found that Moody failed
to prove the adverse employment actions taken against Moody were pretextual, or the real
reason for the adverse employment actions was unlawful retaliation for Moody engaging in
protected activity. Based on these findings, the magistrate recommended judgment in
favor of ODMHAS. Moody filed objections to the magistrate’s decision, asserting the
evidence at trial belied the magistrate’s findings. Moody argued the evidence
overwhelmingly demonstrated he did not violate Twin Valley’s incident reporting policies
because it showed both the applicable written rules did not require him to file incident
No. 24AP-144 3
reports concerning the occurrences and his decisions not to file incident reports were
consistent with employee practice at Twin Valley.
{¶ 5} The Court of Claims conducted a de novo review of the facts and whether the
magistrate erred in applying the law to those facts. In its decision on the objections, the
Court of Claims noted that, in objecting to the magistrate’s decision, Moody did not dispute
the accuracy of the magistrate’s recitation of the evidence; instead, he argued the magistrate
omitted from her decision certain facts supporting his position that he did not violate any
incident reporting policy at Twin Valley. Based on its review of the record, the Court of
Claims rejected Moody’s arguments and concluded the magistrate properly determined the
pertinent facts and applied the law to those facts. Consequently, the Court of Claims
overruled Moody’s objections, adopted the magistrate’s decision as its own, and rendered
judgment in favor of ODMHAS as to Moody’s retaliation claim.
{¶ 6} Moody timely appeals.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 7} Moody assigns the following two assignments of error for our review:
[I.] It was unreasonable, arbitrarily [sic], and unconscionable
for the Court of Claims to accept the Magistrate’s
determination that Mr. Moody’s being subjected to two police
investigations and being recommended for further discipline
was not in retaliation for his having engaged in protected
activity.
[II.] It was reversible error for the Court of Claims to accept
the Magistrate’s determination that Mr. Moody’s being
subjected to two police investigations and being
recommended for further discipline was not in retaliation for
his having engaged in protected activity.
III. Discussion
{¶ 8} Both of Moody’s assignments of error allege the Court of Claims erred in
accepting the magistrate’s determination that he failed to prove he was subject to retaliation
for engaging in protected activity. Moody asserts ODMHAS’s given reason for the adverse
employment action—his failure to file incident reports as required—was pretext for
retaliation. According to Moody, the evidence overwhelmingly demonstrated that incident
reports were only filed for incidents involving patient safety or the targeting of patients, and
that it was proper for him to informally report workplace misconduct incidents to nurses
No. 24AP-144 4
for guidance in how to proceed. Moody essentially argues the Court of Claims’ decision to
enter judgment in favor of ODMHAS as to his retaliation claim was against the manifest
weight of the evidence. These assignments of error are not well-taken.
{¶ 9} If a party files objections to a magistrate’s decision, a trial court reviews that
decision de novo. Meccon, Inc. v. Univ. of Akron, 10th Dist. No. 12AP-899, 2013-Ohio-
2563, ¶ 15, citing Mayle v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 09AP-541, 2010-
Ohio-2774, ¶ 15. An appellate court reviews a trial court’s adoption of a magistrate’s
decision for an abuse of discretion. Id. at ¶ 15. An abuse of discretion connotes a decision
that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d
217, 219 (1983). As to questions of law, however, an appellate court’s review is de novo.
Masterclean, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs., 10th Dist. No. 98AP-727, 1999 Ohio App.
LEXIS 2188 (May 13, 1999). With respect to a manifest weight challenge, a “judgment
supported by some competent, credible evidence going to all the essential elements of the
case will not be reversed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Meccon at
¶ 15, citing Watson v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 11AP-606, 2012-Ohio-
1017, ¶ 31, citing C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 279 (1978), syllabus.
In applying this standard of review, “an appellate court must presume the findings of the
trier of fact are correct because it is best able to observe the witnesses and use those
observations in weighing the credibility of the testimony.” Id.{¶ 10} Based on this court’s prior decision in this matter, the trial on remand was
limited to Moody’s retaliation claim. To establish a prima facie case of retaliation, a plaintiff
must demonstrate: (1) the plaintiff engaged in a protected activity, (2) the employer knew
the plaintiff engaged in the protected activity, (3) the employer subjected the plaintiff to an
adverse employment action, and (4) a causal link existed between the protected activity and
the adverse action. Moody at ¶ 36. If the plaintiff demonstrates a prima facie case, the
burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate reason for its action. Id. If the
employer meets that burden, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the
employer’s reason was false, and retaliation was the real reason. Id.; Ames v. Ohio Dept. of
Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. No. 14AP-119, 2014-Ohio-4774, ¶ 24. The burden of persuasion
always remains with the plaintiff. Id.No. 24AP-144 5
{¶ 11} Here, the factual dispute at trial centered on whether ODMHAS’s justification
for taking adverse action against Moody—his failure to comply with Twin Valley’s incident
reporting policy—was pretext for relation against Moody for engaging in protected conduct.
Twin Valley Hospital Directive A-19, which was admitted into evidence at trial, detailed
Twin Valley’s policy regarding the reporting of “incidents” at the facility. (Ex. A at 1.) The
purpose of the “policy is to establish standards and procedures for the hospital and
Community Support Network (CSN) to ensure that prompt and accurate reporting,
immediate evaluation, implementation of corrective/remedial action, and preventative
measures take place with the occurrence of each incident.” (Ex. A at 1.) Stated broadly, it
is the “policy of Twin Valley Behavioral Healthcare (TVBH) that any incident which is not
consistent with the routine care of patients, or the routine services provided by the hospital
or CSN, and staff, shall be reported and investigated so that corrective/remedial action and
preventative measures can be implemented.” (Ex. A at 1.) The directive requires that “[a]ll
incidents shall be documented and reported in accordance with the provisions of the Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC), Rule 5122-3-13, ‘Regional Psychiatric Hospital (RPH) Incident
Reporting’ and on the forms and database prescribed by OhioMHAS.” (Ex. A at 9.)
{¶ 12} Additional evidence at trial indicated that, during a December 2018
investigation of the conduct of Twin Valley employee Anthony James, Moody alleged he
witnessed James verbally abuse a patient, calling that patient a “motherfucker.” (Ex. 7.)
James denied this allegation. Ultimately, the investigator deemed the allegation unfounded
and closed the investigation. During a second December 2018 investigation, Moody was
interviewed regarding allegations concerning Twin Valley employee Paige Sherman. In
that interview, Moody stated that, two months earlier, Sherman had yelled at a patient and
refused requests from this patient for a phone call or a snack. When asked why he did not
previously report this misconduct, Moody explained that he told a nurse about them, which
he understood to be sufficient under the circumstances. The investigation of Sherman’s
conduct also concluded with a finding that the allegations of misconduct against her were
unsubstantiated.
{¶ 13} As a result of these investigations, in January 2019, Twin Valley charged
Moody with failing to comply with its requirement to report a violation of any work rule,
policy, or procedure. More specifically, Twin Valley charged Moody with failing to timely
No. 24AP-144 6
report his allegation that another staff member called a patient a “motherfucker,” and his
allegation that another staff member abused and neglected a patient. (Ex. E.) The charging
letter from Twin Valley informed Moody of the scheduling of a pre-disciplinary conference
meeting for the following week. At the meeting, Moody generally disagreed with the
process and allegations. He submitted a letter from his attorney, which was not considered.
After the meeting, a finding of just-cause for discipline was issued based on Moody’s
violations of the reporting requirements.1 No final disciplinary action determination was
made, however, as Moody resigned from employment in April 2019. (Ex. 9.)
{¶ 14} This evidence reasonably demonstrated that Twin Valley took adverse action
against Moody because he did not report certain instances of abuse and neglect pursuant
to Twin Valley’s incident reporting policy. Applying the plain language of the incident
reporting policy, Moody was required to file incident reports upon his personal observation
of an employee calling a patient a “motherfucker,” and another employee yelling at a patient
and denying that patient food and phone call requests. He did not, however, promptly
report these incidents as required, thereby violating the policy.
{¶ 15} Despite this clear application, Moody contends Twin Valley’s incident
reporting policy was not strictly adhered or enforced, undermining the rationale given by
ODMHAS for taking adverse action against him. The Court of Claims reasonably rejected
this contention. In the Court of Claims’ analysis of the evidence, in addition to citing the
plain language of the policy, it noted the testimony of Moody’s supervisor, Iya Ngalla, and
the testimony of other Twin Valley employees, indicated that Twin Valley’s policy required
the person witnessing the violation to file a written incident report. The Court of Claims
further noted that, conversely, other testimony of Twin Valley staff indicated that there was
inconsistent adherence to, and enforcement of, the incident reporting policy. In resolving
this conflicting evidence, the Court of Claims was unconvinced that Moody was not
required to file incident reports under the circumstances, or that evidence of inconsistent
application of the incident reporting policy demonstrated ODMHAS’s justification of its
action against Moody otherwise was pretext for retaliation. In challenging this conclusion,
Moody essentially requests this court to reweigh the evidence and resolve that he met his
1 In Moody, this court found that the evidence that Moody was investigated, charged with failing to report
violations, and potentially faced discipline under Twin Valley’s progressive discipline system, demonstrated
that he was subjected to adverse employment action for the purpose of his retaliation claim. Moody at ¶ 40.
No. 24AP-144 7
burden of persuasion in support of his retaliation claim. But inconsistency or conflict in
the testimony at trial regarding the degree of adherence to that policy, and the
consequences for that noncompliance, were primarily for the Court of Claims, as the trier
of fact, to resolve. The Court of Claims reasonably resolved that differing understandings
of the policy, and its enforcement, did not demonstrate the reason given for the adverse
employment action against Moody was pretext for retaliation. Consequently, the Court of
Claims rendered judgment in favor of ODMHAS as to Moody’s retaliation claim. Because
this decision was supported by competent, credible evidence, it was not against the
manifest weight of the evidence.
{¶ 16} Accordingly, we overrule Moody’s first and second assignments of error.
IV. Disposition
{¶ 17} Having overruled Moody’s first and second assignments of error, we affirm
the judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio.
Judgment affirmed.
DORRIAN and EDELSTEIN, JJ., concur.
_____________