This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court finally reversed the Dohme case on the merits, finding that that the plaintiff had failed to allege the violation of any state or federal statute, regulation, rule or decision when he was fired for insubordination after complaining to an insurance adjuster (despite explicit instructions to the contrary) about certain fire alarm inspection reports being missing as part of a supposed scheme to set him up to be fired.
Dohme v. Eurand America, Inc., 2011-Ohio-4609. As reported
here in June and earlier in February 2008, “the Ohio Supreme Court heard oral argument about whether public policy wrongful discharge claims should be recognized when the employee did not “blow the whistle” to either a government agency or management about safety concerns, but rather, complained to a private sector insurance auditor about his paranoia of being set up to be fired due to an allegedly missing document about fire alarm inspections. The Court resolved the dispute on the very narrow grounds of the “clarity” element of a wrongful discharge claim. Because the plaintiff had failed to identify any law which permitted, encouraged or required him to express his concerns to the adjuster, the employer was perfectly justified to forbid unauthorized conversations with the adjuster and to fire the plaintiff for insubordination when he disregarded those explicit instructions. Vague concerns about workplace safety are insufficient to support a claim for wrongful discharge. Rather, citation to some legal authority is required:
[T]o satisfy the clarity element of a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, a terminated employee must articulate a clear public policy by citation to specific provisions in the federal or state constitution, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law. A general reference to workplace safety is insufficient to meet the clarity requirement.
Interestingly, the Court also noted that it was inappropriate for a court to sua sponte fill in a supposed public policy if the plaintiff fails to identify such a policy or law.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
