Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, DISCRIMINATION—S.D. Ohio: Hispanic dentist with arthritis advances some claims against Nationwide Children’s Hospital, (Jun 11, 2025)

By Jason Albright, J.D.

She alleged that a supervisor once called her a “tattle tale” for raising workplace safety concerns.

A dentist of Hispanic origin with arthritis in her thumb, allegedly denied accommodations that were afforded to white men, stated Rehabilitation Act failure-to-accommodate; Section 1981 intentional discrimination; and Ohio disability, race, and sex discrimination claims against Nationwide Children’s Hospital, a federal district court in Ohio found. Although the employee failed to timely exhaust her ADA claims, the hospital did not dispute that she plausibly alleged a failure to accommodate claim under the Rehab Act, and she also adequately alleged four specific actions against her based on her race, including that the hospital undertook an “invasive and far-reaching review of her disability” unlike a white male colleague who requested an accommodation (Ortega v. Nationwide Children’s Hospital, No. 2:24-cv-3702 (S.D. Ohio Jun. 10, 2025)).

Dentist with arthritis in thumb. The plaintiff, a Hispanic American woman, first joined Nationwide Children’s Hospital (NCH) as a Staff Dentist in 2017. Before joining NCH, she had been diagnosed with arthritis affecting her right thumb.

Allegedly pressured. Her condition made it difficult for her to extract patients’ permanent molars, but when she expressed concern about performing extractions, NCH allegedly “criticized [her] for her reluctance, inferring that [she] was professionally inadequate, resulting in her being pressured into performing the extractions despite her stated concerns[.]”

Medical accommodation, and yet… By the end of 2021, NCH had granted her a formal medical accommodation exempting her from performing permanent molar extractions. Nevertheless, NCH assigned her to perform 10 permanent molar extractions between January 2022 and May 10, 2023.

White men treated better. She further alleged that white male dentists’ medical accommodations were “honored and adhered to.” She was allegedly required to “routinely apply to renew her accommodation” and her disability was allegedly subject to “invasive and far-reaching review,” unlike similarly situated white male colleagues with disability accommodations.

Higher workload. Separate and apart from her medical accommodation, she also alleged that NCH assigned her a “disproportionately higher workload of physically demanding clinical hours” as compared to administrative hours and “refused to grant [her] multiple requests for equivalent administrative hours” as white male colleagues with or without disabilities.

Work environment. Finally, she alleged that NCH was “simply not a nice place to work,” in the words of the court. In particular, she alleged that a supervisor once called her a “tattle tale” for raising workplace safety concerns, that NCH disregarded a co-worker’s sexual harassment complaint, and that leadership “routinely question[ed]” the “work ethic” of non-white employees.

Resignation and lawsuit. She alleged that the general work environment and specific instances of discrimination created intolerable conditions, causing her to tender a resignation on March 23, 2023. Her last day of work at NCH was June 20, 2023. She thereafter brought nine claims against NCH, alleging violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, 42 U.S.C.§1981, and Ohio law. NCG moved to dismiss.

ADA claims untimely. The court first found that her ADA claims were untimely under the statute’s 300-day administrative exhaustion requirement. Her April 5, 2024 EEOC charge was simply too late, filed more than 300 days after her March 23, 2023 resignation of employment.

Rehab Act failure to accommodate. Her Rehab Act failure to accommodate claim, however, survived the motion to dismiss. To state a Rehabilitation Act discrimination claim based on a failure-to-accommodate, a plaintiff must allege that (i) she has a qualifying disability, (ii) she is otherwise qualified, with or without a reasonable accommodation, (iii) her employer was aware of the disability, (iv) she requested a reasonable accommodation, and (v) her employer failed to provide one. And here, NCH did not dispute that she plausibly alleged each of the elements.

Retaliation. Her retaliation claim under the Rehab Act was dismissed, however, because there were no facts “that would allow the Court to tie a causal string” between her alleged assignment of “disproportionately higher” clinical, as opposed to administrative or teaching, workload and her accommodation requests.

HWE claims. Her hostile work environment (HWE) claims under the Rehab Act were likewise dismissed. She worked at NCH for six years, during which time she was allegedly “criticized” for requesting an accommodation, “forced” to perform 10 procedures outside her approved accommodation, and assigned a disproportionately higher number of physically intensive clinical hours (as opposed to administrative hours) compared to similarly situated colleagues. These allegations, the court found, “do not approach the level of harassment required for an actionable hostile work environment.”

Section 1981. The dentist’s Section 1981 race discrimination claim survived the motion to dismiss. Here, the court found that NCH took four specific actions against her on the basis of her race, and the first three actions related to her disability accommodation. First, she alleged that NCH undertook an “invasive and far-reaching review of her disability,” unlike a white male colleague who requested an accommodation. She next alleged that NCH failed to honor her disability accommodation, while it honored and adhered to the white male colleague’s. Finally, she alleged that NCH required her to “routinely apply to renew her accommodation” but did not impose the same requirement on her white male colleagues.

Apart from her disability accommodation, she also alleged that NCH assigned her a disproportionate number of physically demanding clinical hours, as compared to white male colleagues. On these more specific grounds, the court found, she adequately alleged that NCH “engaged in intentionally discriminatory conduct that abridged her enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of employment.”

State-law claims. Finally, the dentist brought four claims under Ohio’s anti-discrimination laws—for disability discrimination, race discrimination, sex discrimination, and retaliation.

Though the retaliation claim failed for the same reasons her Rehab Act retaliation claim failed, NCH, did not otherwise “engage with whether the facts alleged in the Second Amended Complaint are sufficient to state a claim for relief.” Its motion to dismiss the state-law discrimination claims was thus denied.

The case is No. 2:24-cv-3702.

Judge: Morrison, S.

Attorneys: Bradley N. Jeckering (Jeckering & Associates) for Rosa Ortega. Daniel J. Clark (Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease) for Nationwide Children's Hospital.

Companies: Nationwide Children's Hospital

Cases: Discrimination DisabilityDiscrimination RaceDiscrimination Retaliation PublicEmployees StateLawClaims Procedure OhioNews