A recent appellate court decision has upheld the dismissal of a former department director who alleged she was terminated due to age and sex discrimination, a case that has drawn attention to workplace practices and anti-discrimination laws in public institutions. The ruling affirms an earlier judgment that found insufficient evidence to support claims of unlawful termination.
Kimberly Jones filed a complaint on April 6, 2023, in the Court of Claims of Ohio against Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, following her termination from the position of Director of Central Sterile Processing. The appellate decision, rendered on March 31, 2026, details the events leading up to Jones’s dismissal and examines whether there was merit to her claims under federal and state anti-discrimination statutes.
According to the court document, Jones began working as Director of Central Sterile Processing in August 2017. She described her role as overseeing surgical instrument decontamination and sterilization for the healthcare system. In deposition testimony, Jones stated that her position was created after years of quality issues and operating room delays related to perioperative services. She also reported being assigned a human resources coach due to toxic relationships and hostility toward the department following organizational changes.
In June 2021, Jones’s supervisor resigned. By December 2021, Calen Bowshier became Administrator for Perioperative Services and Central Sterile Services (CSS), serving as Jones’s direct supervisor. Bowshier later conducted a performance evaluation in August 2022 and began receiving reports from key stakeholders about ongoing struggles within Jones’s department. In his affidavit, Bowshier cited concerns with “her lack of effective leadership, poor communication, and failure to proactively and strategically address the root causes of recurring issues and ongoing dissatisfaction.” After placing Jones on a performance improvement plan (PIP) due to continued complaints about her management style and departmental turnover rates, Bowshier ultimately recommended her termination.
Jones was terminated on October 27, 2022 at age 53. Her responsibilities were distributed between two existing employees: Benjamin Lawler and Jennifer Baughman. Following this action, Jones asserted claims for age and gender discrimination under both federal law—the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act—and corresponding state statutes.
The medical center moved for summary judgment on September 12, 2024. On January 29, 2025, the Court of Claims granted summary judgment in favor of Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. In response, Jones appealed this decision arguing that granting summary judgment was improper both factually and legally.
The appellate court reviewed whether there existed any genuine issue of material fact regarding pretext—whether the employer’s stated reason for termination (unsatisfactory job performance) masked discriminatory intent based on age or sex. The court explained that under established legal standards (including McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green), if an employer provides a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for discharge, it is up to the plaintiff to prove by a preponderance of evidence that this reason is merely pretextual.
Jones argued several points in support of pretext: she challenged specific criticisms cited by Bowshier in his request for termination; pointed out ongoing departmental challenges after her departure; noted that some protocols she developed were still used; claimed other employees engaged in similar conduct without discipline; and referenced ambiguous comments such as being described as “archaic.”
However, upon review of deposition testimony—including statements about persistent interpersonal conflicts with other departments—and documentation regarding departmental performance issues predating her tenure as well as continuing after her departure, the court concluded these factors did not amount to evidence sufficient for a reasonable jury to infer discriminatory motive behind her termination.
The court also considered whether similarly situated employees received different treatment but found no clear evidence that Lawler or Baughman had identical roles or expectations post-termination or were held to comparable standards.
Regarding allegations tied specifically to sex discrimination—including negative interactions with certain colleagues—the court noted there was no indication those individuals influenced the decision-making process leading up to Jones’s firing.
Ultimately, the appellate panel found “no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether appellee’s reason for [Jones’s] termination—unsatisfactory job performance—was a pretext for discrimination.” As such, it affirmed summary judgment in favor of Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center.
Attorneys representing Kimberly Jones included Erica Ann Probst and Andrea L. Salvino from Kemp, Schaeffer & Rowe Co., LPA. Representing Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center were Dave Yost (Attorney General) and Daniel J. Benoit. The case identification number is No. 25AP-186.
Source: 2026Ohio1149_Jones_v_Ohio_State_University_Wexner_Medical_Center_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
