Opinion
2021-00419VI
01-28-2022
IN RE: TWILA JEAN MARTIN TWILA JEAN MARTIN Applicant
Sent to S.C. Reporter 12/21/22
DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE
Daniel R. Borchert, Magistrate
{¶1} On April 14, 2021, applicant, Twila Jean Martin, filed a compensation application with the Ohio Attorney General alleging that she was a victim of sexual harassment and housing issues. Applicant sought reimbursement for medical expenses, clothing, travel expenses, counseling, replacement services, and lost wages.
{¶2} On April 28, 2021, the Attorney General issued a finding of fact and decision denying applicant's claim because applicant did not report the incident to law enforcement. Applicant submitted a request for reconsideration on May 11, 2021. She included with that request paperwork from the Ohio Civil Rights Commission indicating that she filed a housing discrimination claim against the Washington County Agricultural & Mechanical Association and others. In the housing discrimination paperwork, applicant related that she lived in a trailer parked at the Washington County fairgrounds. She alleged that the manager of the trailer park at the fairgrounds sexually harassed her and committed various acts of housing discrimination against her after she rejected his sexual advances.
{¶3} On July 9, 2021, the Attorney General rendered a Final Decision. Therein, applicant's claim was denied because she did not report the incidents of harassment to law enforcement and there was insufficient proof that the incidents occurred. On July 29, 2021, applicant filed a notice of appeal from the Final Decision of the Attorney General. In the notice of appeal, applicant raises a new issue of an injury-accident which occurred on August 4, 2019. If applicant wishes to pursue this issue this would be the proper subject for a compensation application.
{¶4} Hence, a hearing was held before this magistrate on November 30, 2021. Assistant Attorneys General Bridjette Hairston and Megan Hanke appeared on behalf of the state of Ohio. Applicant appeared on her own behalf.
{¶5} Through applicant's testimony, it became clear that applicant was alleging two separate acts of criminally injurious conduct: sexual harassment and a car accident. However, the car accident is not properly in front of the court. Accordingly, this issue will not be addressed further. Applicant testified that she used to live in a trailer on the Washington County Fairgrounds. One of the board members, Dan Mason, acted as the manager of the fairground. Shortly after applicant moved into the trailer in June 2018, Mason began to sexually harass her. He asked her to kick out her male roommate and move her trailer to Mason's property, where he would not charge her rent. When she refused, he continued to harass her, which included sending her nude photos of himself, disconnecting the water and sewage service from her trailer, ceased to deliver her mail, and refusing to move the trailer back to the normal trailer after the conclusion of the county fair-thus further depriving her of water and sewage service. After the other board members failed to abate the harassment, applicant moved out of the fairgrounds in July 2019. Applicant testified that she filed a complaint with the police department that documented the abuse. She further testified that she had the paperwork with her. However, there was no police report on that issue in the paperwork that she provided to the court. Instead, the paperwork included a complaint that she filed for housing discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, discussed below.
{¶6} Applicant testified that she filed a claim for housing discrimination with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. She further testified that she won her claim and was awarded $3,000 for her camper, but that amount was not enough to reimburse her for everything she lost as a result of the harassment and discrimination. Applicant provided evidence at the hearing indicating that she filed a claim with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission, and the Commission brought a complaint against the fairground board members for harassment, acts of intimidation, threats, and coercion. However, she did not provide any evidence indicating that she was awarded $3,000 in damages.
{¶7} Applicant also called Todd Schell as a witness. Schell lived with applicant at the fairgrounds. He largely reiterated and affirmed what applicant had already testified.
{¶8} The Attorney General argued that applicant did not prove that she reported the unlawful living conditions to law enforcement.
{¶9} R.C. 2743.52(A) places the burden of proof on an applicant to satisfy the Court of Claims that the requirements for an award have been met by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Rios, 8 Ohio Misc.2d 4, 455 N.E.2d 1374 (Ct. of Cl. 1983).
{¶10} R.C. 2743.60(A) states: "The attorney general or the court of claims shall not make or order an award of reparations to a claimant if the criminally injurious conduct upon which the claimant bases a claim never was reported to a law enforcement officer or agency."
{¶11} R.C. 2743.51 (C)(1) in pertinent part states:
"(C) 'Criminally injurious conduct' means one of the following: "(1) For the purposes of any person described in division (A)(1) of this section, any conduct that occurs or is attempted in this state; poses a substantial threat of personal injury or death; and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or death, or would be so punishable but for the fact that the person engaging in the conduct lacked capacity to commit the crime under the laws of this state."
{¶12} Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990) defines burden of proof as: "the necessity or duty of affirmatively proving a fact or facts in dispute on an issue raised between the parties in a cause. The obligation of a party to establish by evidence a requisite degree of belief concerning a fact in the mind of the trier of fact or the court."
{¶13} Black's Law Dictionary Sixth Edition (1990) defines preponderance of the evidence as: "evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not."
{¶14} Applicant must produce evidence which furnishes a reasonable basis for sustaining her claim. If the evidence furnishes a basis for only a guess, among different possibilities, as to any essential issue in the case, she fails to sustain the burden as to such issue. In re Staten, Ct. of Cl. No. V2001 -60051 tc (May 27, 2011), 2011 -Ohio-4321, citing Landon v. Lee Motors, Inc. 161 Ohio St. 82, 118 N.E.2d 147 (1964).
{¶15} From a careful review of the case file and consideration of the arguments presented at the hearing, I find that applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to prove that she reported the sexual harassment to the police. Applicant's testimony that she submitted the police report into evidence on the day of the hearing, combined with the lack of a police report, lead to the conclusion that her memory of reporting the incident to the police is unreliable. Instead, she appears to be remembering reporting the abuse to the Ohio Civil Rights Commission. The evidence she submitted and her testimony indicate that she prevailed on her housing discrimination claim, and she was awarded $3,000 in damages. Therefore, apart from the evidence indicating that she did not report the harassment to the police, her testimony indicated that the situation with her trailer and related issues were resolved by the Civil Rights Commission.
{¶16} As a side note, applicant submitted several letters to the court claiming that the current criminal charges against her are further retaliation from allies of Mason, the fairgrounds board member who harassed her. However, this court does not have jurisdiction to review any criminal proceedings. Perry v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-571, 2012-Ohio-452.
{¶17} I recommend that the Attorney General's Final Decision of July 9, 2021, be affirmed. If applicant wishes to pursue her claim for the car accident which occurred on August 4, 2019, this would be the appropriate subject for a compensation application.
{¶18} A party may file written objections to the magistrate's decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision, whether or not the court has adopted the decision during that 14-day period as permitted by Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(e)(i). If any party timely files objections, any other party may also file objections not later than ten days after the first objections are filed. A party shall not assign as error on appeal the court's adoption of any factual finding or legal conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as finding of fact or conclusion of law under Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal conclusion within 14 days of the filing of the decision, as required by Civ.R. 53(D)(3)(b).