Login | April 25, 2024
Housing discrimination charges against property owner reversed
TRACEY BLAIR
Legal News Reporter
Published: August 21, 2017
An Ashtabula County trial court committed prejudicial error by failing to dismiss all housing discrimination charges against a landlord because the charging documents were not made under oath, according to the 11th District Court of Appeals.
Helen Grybosky appealed an Ohio Civil Rights Commission decision which found she committed discriminatory practices.
Court records show Helen and Gary Grybosky received two letters in 2008 notifying them of charges relating to their Conneaut rental property.
The administrative law judge found the Gryboskys discriminated against households with children and people with disabilities.
The commission ordered the couple to cease and desist from all discriminatory practices and ordered them to pay the complainant’s actual out-of-pocket damages. They were also ordered to pay the attorney general’s, complainant’s and Fair Housing Resource Center’s legal fees and travel costs.
In addition, the appellant’s were required to complete at least four hours of training on Ohio’s anti-discriminatory fair housing laws.
The Ashtabula County judge previously dismissed the commission’s decision against Gary.
Helen then appealed her charges to the 11th District.
“Helen argues here, as she did to the commission and trial court, that the Ohio Civil Rights Commission lacked jurisdiction to hear the disability claims against her because the charging documents do not satisfy the R.C. 4112.05(B)(1) oath requirement,” appellate Judge Thomas R. Wright said in his majority opinion.
“The trial court considered this issue and held that the oath requirement is not a jurisdictional prerequisite to the commission’s jurisdiction over cases alleging housing discrimination under R.C. 4112.02(H). We disagree and find that a plain reading of R.C. 4112.05 dictates the results.”
Judge Wright noted that the statute states that a charge of unlawful discriminatory practice must be in writing and under oath, and must be filed with the commission within one year after the alleged unlawful practice was committed.
The appellees argued that the charges against the couple were not subject to the oath requirement because the allegations against them stemmed from an independent commission investigation under R.C. 4112.05(B)(2).
The commission claimed its charges satisfied Ohio Administrative Code 4112-3-01(B)(2), which only requires that housing discrimination charges be signed and affirmed by the complainant under penalty of perjury.
However, the Ohio Supreme Court has held that an unsworn written statement that is signed under penalty of perjury cannot be substituted for a sworn affidavit, Judge Wright added.
The appellate panel, which included judges Timothy P. Cannon and Diane V. Grendell, recently reversed the charges against Helen.
The case is cited Grybosky v. Civil Rights Comm., 2017-Ohio-7125.