Legal Opinion
Debolt v. Eastman Kodak Co.
Ohio Court of Appeals
Decided November 29, 2001No. 01AP-55 (REGULAR CALENDAR)PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Petree, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff, William E. DeBolt, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting the summary judgment motion of defendants, Eastman Kodak Company (“Kodak”) and John Shatzer, on plaintiffs handicap discrimination claim.
{¶2} Plaintiff was employed by Kodak as a field engineer in Kodak’s Customer Equipment Services Division from June 22, 1970, until his termination on February 27, 1997. As a field engineer, plaintiff was required to travel to Kodak customer premises to service, repair, and install various types of imaging equipment. Among the types…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1977
- Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1999
- Murphy v. City of ReynoldsburgOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- Brown v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1993
- Albertson's, Inc. v. KirkingburgSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- You v. Northeast Ohio Med. Univ.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2018
- Kleiber v. Honda of America Mfg., Inc.District Court, S.D. Ohio · 2006
- Anderson v. Bright Horizons Children's Ctrs., L.L.C.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2022
- O'Donnell v. N.E. Ohio Neighborhood Health Servs., Inc.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2020
- Ceglia v. Youngstown State Univ.Ohio Court of Appeals · 2015
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.