OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****

The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27, 1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer. Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S. Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010. Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome. NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the full texts of the opinions after they have been released electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions. The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Campbell, Appellant, v. Rockynol Retirement Community et al., Appellees. [Cite as Campbell v. Rockynol Retirement Community (1994), Ohio St.3d .] Employer and employee -- Racial discrimination -- R.C. 4112.99 is a remedial statute and is subject to R.C. 2305.07's six-year limitations period. (No. 94-288 -- Submitted November 1, 1994 -- Decided December 14, 1994.) Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No. 16286.

Dennis R. Thompson, for appellant. Hahn, Loeser & Parks and Pamela S. Krivda, for appellee Rockynol Retirement Community. Lewis J. DiRosario, for appellee Tom Miller.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed on the authority of Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings. A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., concur. Moyer, C.J., concurs separately. F.E. Sweeney, J., dissents. No. 94-288 Moyer, C.J., Concurring Separately December 2, 1994 File No. 8432 Doc. No. 2378Y

Moyer, C.J., concurring separately. I concur separately in the judgment entry in the above-styled case. As stated in the concurring opinion in Cosgrove v. Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 281, 638 N.E.2d 991, I do not agree with the law announced in the majority decision. Nevertheless, it is the law on the issue in the above-styled case. As I believe all parties should receive equal application of the law announced by this court, and only for that reason, I concur in the judgment entry.