remedy under § 4112.05. If so, Defendant’s assertion that Plaintiffs pursuit of administra tive relief precludes him from also getting relief from bringing a civil action under § 4112.02(N). The interpretation of the Ohio General Assembly’s intent in drafting an election of remedies into Chapter 4112 of the Ohio Revised Code is a matter of state law. The Ohio Supreme Court has not spoken directly to the issue of whether an EEOC filing equates with the election of an administrative remedy under § 4112.05, but it has expressed an unwillingness to interpret Chapter 4112’s election of remedy scheme to preclude an individual from pursuing both a federal and state law claim for age discrimination. See Morris v. Kaiser Engineers, Inc., 14 Ohio St.3d 45, 471 N.E.2d 471, 474 (1984) (<HOLDING>). Further, after Morris, the Sixth Circuit
holding that a plaintiff who had previously filed a claim of age discrimination under  410117  411214 prior to recodification was not barred from later filing a charge with the ocrc under  411205 in order to meet the prerequisites for filing a federal age discrimination claim holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort holding that age discrimination claim was subject to compulsory arbitration holding disability discrimination claim barred holding age discrimination claim barred