Professional Documents
Culture Documents
COMES NOW Plaintiff Karen Leisring, by and through her undersigned counsel, and for
her Complaint against Defendants Hamilton County Clerk of Courts and Aftab Pureval, in his
PARTIES
Division.
2. Defendant Hamilton County Clerk of Courts is the official record keeper and agent of
Hamilton County’s justice system, and is located at 1000 Main St., Cincinnati, OH 45202.
3. By statute, the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts serves as the Clerk of the Hamilton
4. Defendant Aftab Pureval is the Clerk of Hamilton County Municipal Court, and is sued
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 2 of 5 PAGEID #: 2
5. This Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint because she is asserting a claim
under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
6. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claim as it shares a
common nucleus of operative facts, and arises out of the same transaction or occurrence,
7. Venue in this Court is proper, as the events and circumstances giving rise to Plaintiff’s
FACTS
8. Plaintiff is 66 years old and has been an employee of Defendants for five years. She has
2017.
9. Prior to her tenure with Defendants, Plaintiff had 15 years of experience in human
resources, including substantial supervisory experience. Her position prior to working for
10. In September 2017, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Jerry Poland, took a leave from his position as
11. Plaintiff served as interim Supervisor while Mr. Poland was out, and until a permanent
12. In her position as interim Supervisor, Plaintiff supervised five full-time employees and one
part-time employee.
13. From around March 15 to March 20, 2018, Defendant Hamilton County Clerk of Courts
2
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 3 of 5 PAGEID #: 3
accepted applications for the Supervisor position Jerry Poland had left, and which Plaintiff
15. Plaintiff was recommended for the position by Jerry Poland himself.
16. On or around March 29, 2018, Plaintiff was interviewed for the position.
17. During her interview, Plaintiff’s interviewers began inquiring about how long she would
19. The question indicated that the ages of the applicants were a consideration for Defendants
20. Plaintiff did not believe this was an appropriate or legal question to ask, but felt under the
circumstances she had to give a response, and told her interviewers she planned to work
21. Defendants unlawfully considered Plaintiff’s answer to this illegal question in making their
hiring decision, and they held the answer against her in their final decision.
22. Despite her prior experience, her established rapport within the department, her seven
recommendation of preceding Supervisor Jerry Poland, Plaintiff was not promoted to the
position of Supervisor.
23. Instead, on April 5, 2018, Katherine Smith, a 28-year old employee of the Clerk’s Common
24. Ms. Smith had no experience with the work of Plaintiff’s department.
25. Ms. Smith’s experience and qualifications were clearly inferior to Plaintiff’s.
3
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 4 of 5 PAGEID #: 4
EMPLYOMENT ACT
27. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ decision not to promote her to the position of
supervisor was motivated by her age, and was in violation of the ADEA.
28. As a result of Defendants’ intentional age discrimination, Plaintiff has been damaged in
the form of the loss of the Supervisor position, and the consequent lost wages and benefits.
30. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants’ decision to deny Plaintiff promotion to the
position of Supervisor violated O.R.C. 4112.14, which prohibits discrimination in any job
opening against any applicant aged 40 or older who is physically able to perform the duties
31. Plaintiff was over the age of 40, and was fully qualified for the Supervisor position.
hereinabove described.
follows:
actions.
4
Case: 1:18-cv-00698-MRB Doc #: 1 Filed: 10/02/18 Page: 5 of 5 PAGEID #: 5
feasible.
benefits.
5. An award of Plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees, court costs, and expenses of litigation incurred
6. All other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.
JURY DEMAND