Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—S.D. Ohio: Fired paramedic could not establish protected activity in retaliation suit, (Oct 3, 2025)

By Ursula Furi-Perry, J.D., MBA

Because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate she engaged in protected activity, her retaliation claims under both Title VII and Ohio law necessarily failed.

A former paramedic who was fired for showing two new colleagues a coworker’s online sex-solicitation profile from a website—which contained sexually explicit photos of the coworker and his wife—failed to establish retaliation. The former paramedic claimed that the coworker had harassed her, but an Ohio federal court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that the plaintiff’s “warning” to coworkers was directed at the coworker individually, not at her employer. Because the plaintiff thus failed to demonstrate she engaged in protected activity, her retaliation claims under both Title VII and Ohio law necessarily failed (Crisp v. Scioto Ambulance Dist., No. 1:23-cv-273 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 30, 2025)).

Paramedic. The plaintiff worked as a paramedic with the Scioto Ambulance District in Ohio, and she had previously worked with one of her coworkers at a different employer, where the plaintiff claimed the coworker routinely harassed her. When she joined Scioto Ambulance in 2018, the plaintiff alleged that the coworker escalated the harassment, including physical misconduct. She reported one such incident to the Ambulance Board, which responded by directing that the two would not be scheduled together. The plaintiff made no further reports and conceded she did not experience additional direct harassment by the coworker thereafter.

Online profile. In June 2022, however, the plaintiff showed two new colleagues the man’s online sex-solicitation profile from a website that contained sexually explicit photos of the coworker and his wife. She told them she was “warning” them about predatory men in EMS and informed them of other past misconduct by the man. One of the new employees relayed this to the coworker, who then reported that the plaintiff had shown nude photos of him to other employees.

Discharge. An investigation conducted by a board member confirmed that the plaintiff admitted to showing the photos at work. Concluding that this behavior was “inappropriate and unprofessional” and could create a hostile environment, the board unanimously voted to terminate the plaintiff for violating policies requiring professional behavior and forbidding “immoral conduct.” She was given a chance to appeal but presented no evidence in her defense.

The plaintiff then filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, under Title VII and the Ohio Civil Rights Act, initially alleging both a hostile work environment and retaliation. She later abandoned her hostile work environment claim, leaving only the retaliation counts. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Protected activity? The plaintiff argued that showing the profile to coworkers constituted protected activity under Title VII’s opposition clause, and that her firing was unlawful retaliation. Under Title VII, however, protected activity requires opposing practices the employee reasonably believes to be unlawful discrimination. The court stressed that this must involve taking an overt stand against a practice of the employer, not merely disapproval of a coworker’s behavior. The court acknowledged that reporting sexual misconduct can constitute protected activity, but emphasized that the plaintiff’s “warning” to coworkers was directed at the coworker individually, not at her employer.

The plaintiff’s evidence showed she intended to alert new employees to the coworker’s alleged misconduct and personal lifestyle, but she did not complain to management or advocate for changes in workplace policies; rather, her conduct was framed as cautionary advice to peers. The court noted that, though complaints to coworkers can be protected, they still must involve opposition to discriminatory practices attributable to the employer, and in this case, the plaintiff was opposing the coworker, not Scioto Ambulance District.

The court rejected the plaintiff’s reliance on cases in which reporting harassment was deemed protected, noting those involved direct complaints to employers or advocacy for corrective action. Simply circulating explicit material and labeling a coworker “perverted” did not meet the statutory definition of opposition. The court also underscored that expanding Title VII’s protections to include such warnings would stretch the statute beyond its intended scope. Because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate she engaged in protected activity, her retaliation claims under both Title VII and Ohio law necessarily failed.

The case is No. 1:23-cv-273.

Judge: Hopkins, J.

Attorneys: Matthew Clark (Gregory, Moore, Brooks & Clark) for Gertrude Crisp. Katherine L. Barbiere (Schroeder, Maundrell, Barbiere & Powers) for Scioto Ambulance District.

Cases: Retaliation SexDiscrimination Discrimination Discharge OhioNews