Ohio Appellate Court Finds Dismissal Without Cause of Probationary Civil Service Employee Violates Public Policy

Editor's Note:  This case was reversed by the Ohio Supreme Court on August 20, 2019.

Earlier this month the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed the 12(B)(6) dismissal of the wrongful discharge claim of a civil service employee who was fired during his probationary period only six days after receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation allegedly because of the negative publicity that surrounded his hiring and prior employment.  Miracle v. Ohio Dept. of Veterans Servs., 2018-Ohio-819.  The Court found that the complaint stated a valid claim as a matter of law that it is illegal to terminate a civil service employee during his or her probationary period when the employee is performing his or her job duties satisfactorily.  In other words, the Court found a just-cause termination standard to be implied as a matter of public policy from the civil service statute during the initial probationary period even if the employee does not have the right to appeal to the applicable civil service commission.  Therefore, while civil service employees who successfully survive their probationary period can appeal only to the Board of Review or civil service commission, probationary employees can challenge their terminations in court.  That being said, this case illustrates one of my favorite practice pieces of advice: it is always risky to terminate an employee without a good reason following a satisfactory performance evaluation.

According to the Court’s opinion and based on the allegations of the complaint, the plaintiff allegedly explained during his job interview that he had been fired by another state agency following an investigation into an earlier prison escape where he formerly worked.    Assured that was not a problem for the current position, he was hired and received a satisfactory performance evaluation four months later.  Six days after that, he was terminated and refused any explanation because he was still a probationary employee.  He alleged that he was fired because an employee in the Governor’s office sought his dismissal to end negative publicity surrounding his hiring after his earlier termination by a different state agency.  There were apparently no allegations that anyone at the State benefitted personally from his termination or that it was in retaliation for engaging in protected conduct which a statute seeks to encourage.   The State moved to dismiss, which the Court of Claims did on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, even if the allegations were true.

In evaluating public policy wrongful discharge claims, “[t]he clarity and jeopardy elements, which involve relatively pure legal and policy questions, present questions of law” which are reviewed on a de novo basis.  The plaintiff alleged that:

"there exists a clear public policy in favor of retaining probationary employees who are satisfactorily performing their duties and against arbitrary termination of such employees."   . . .  In other words, [the plaintiff] derived from R.C. 124.27 a clear public policy against the discharge of civil service employees who provide satisfactory service during the probationary period.

The trial court had evaluated the allegation to preclude any termination of a probationary employee and found there to be no such public policy.  While the Court agreed that was true, it also found that the trial court misconstrued the alleged public policy, which – as an appellate court reviewing an issue of law de novo – it concluded did exist.  Therefore, it sustained the plaintiff’s claimed error and remanded the case to proceed with discovery. 

The civil service statute at issue – R.C. §124.27(B) -- provides in relevant part:

(B) All original and promotional appointments in the classified civil service, including appointments made pursuant to section 124.30 of the Revised Code, but not intermittent appointments, shall be for a probationary period, not less than sixty days nor more than one year, to be fixed by the rules of the director for appointments in the civil service of the state . . . . No appointment or promotion is final until the appointee has satisfactorily served the probationary period.   If the service of the probationary employee is unsatisfactory, the employee may be removed or reduced at any time during the probationary period.  If the appointing authority decides to remove a probationary employee in the service of the state, the appointing authority shall communicate the removal to the director. A probationary employee duly removed or reduced in position for unsatisfactory service does not have the right to appeal the removal or reduction under section 124.34 of the Revised Code.  (italics added for emphasis).

In a slightly different claim, the plaintiff alleged that Ohio public policy prohibits the abuse of power by officials, which the State conceded.  The Court then observed that the plaintiff would need to allege and prove that the alleged public policy was jeopardized by his discharge, but that the defendants had made a different argument in moving to dismiss.   Although the State argued that there was no private right of action under R.C. 124.56, the Court observed that this is whole point of public policy claims – to create a remedy where none otherwise exists when the public policy would be jeopardized.  Also, the complaint sufficiently alleged misconduct by the named defendants when they complied with the directions to resolve inconvenient “political optics.”  Finally, the fact that the defendants had the power and authority to dismiss probationary employees did not resolve the jeopardy question when it was alleged that their exercise of that power and authority violated the public policy against abuse of power.

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 be changed or 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.

Court Rejects Public Policy Wrongful Discharge Claim for Lack of Clarity About Employer’s Alleged Legal Violation

Last week, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a wrongful discharge claim brought by a terminated paramedic who alleged that he was fired for opposing the mistreatment of a patient in violation of Ohio public policy. Strodtbeck v. Lake Hosp. Sys., Inc., 2011-Ohio-2327. He questioned the medical treatment of a patient and took a picture of the alleged mistreatment with his cell phone camera and later showed the picture to the nurse manager and human resources while sharing his concerns. The employer chose to focus on his failure to obtain written consent from the patient before taking the picture instead of his complaint and terminated his employment. The Court found that the plaintiff had failed to identify any clear public policy, statute or other law which applied to his actions or which the hospital violated in terminating his employment. Thus, he had failed to satisfy the "clarity" element of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.

In moving for summary judgment, the hospital had pointed out that the plaintiff did not have explicit permission from management to take the picture, failed to obtain written consent from the patient (as required by HIPAA practices), used his personal cell phone during working hours and failed to use the hospital's Polaroid camera in the ER to document his concerns. More importantly, the plaintiff failed to identify any specific public policy which the hospital violated in terminating his employment. Among other things, he failed to identify any required standard of medical care that would cover the amount of tape used to attach a catheter to a patient's leg or reporting possible patient abuse or maltreatment in a hospital setting.

The plaintiff argued that his situation was analogous to other situations where courts have found violations of public policy. However, the court refused to accept analogous situation as sufficient to satisfy the "clarity" element of a public policy wrongful discharge claim. Accordingly, the Court rejected the plaintiff's attempt to analogize his situation to one where an employee is fired for consulting with an attorney. Similarly, the court rejected the argument that his situation was analogous to firing an employee for cooperating with a criminal investigation of the employer because there was never any criminal investigation in this case and the plaintiff never alleged that the alleged mistreatment of the patient was criminal. Likewise, the plaintiff could not analogize to a situation where the employee was fired to testifying against the employer because there was never any legal or administrative proceeding in this case. Finally, the court refused to recognize an applicable public policy from the nursing home patient's bill of rights because the patient was in a hospital, not a nursing home, and there is a statutory remedy in nursing home abuse situations.

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.

Sixth Circuit: No Violation of Public Policy for Firing Employee For Bringing Weapon onto Employer’s Property.

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of an employer which fired an employee for keeping a concealed weapon in his car in the employer’s parking lot in violation of the employer’s policy. Plona v. UPS, No. 08-5624.

According to the court’s opinion, the employer’s policy provided: “All UPS employees are prohibited from using or possessing a firearm . . . while on UPS property or while conducting official UPS business. This includes, but is not limited to: UPS vehicles, facilities (including parking lots, customer premises, etc.) and while on duty or during personal breaks.” The plaintiff “had previously signed an acknowledgment form stating that he was aware of this policy.” After the employer contacted the local sheriff “about a package containing possible contraband,” a K-9 search was conducted of cars in the parking lot. “During the search, one of the dogs identified [the plaintiff’s] car as a vehicle to inspect. [The plaintiff] consented to the search and informed the sheriff’s deputies that he had a firearm in the vehicle. The deputies found a .22 caliber Luger pistol under the front seat and its empty ammunition magazine in the glove compartment. [The plaintiff] did not have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and had not registered the pistol. The deputies confiscated the weapon and reported their findings to UPS. Two UPS officials then met with [the plaintiff], who conceded that he was aware of UPS’s weapons policies and admitted that he had knowingly left the pistol in his car. The UPS officials accordingly discharged [the plaintiff], effective immediately.”

The plaintiff “subsequently filed a lawsuit against UPS in federal court, alleging wrongful discharge. He claimed that his firing was in violation of the public policy regarding firearms embodied in Article I, § 4 of the Ohio Constitution.” The Sixth Circuit disagreed. “Although the Ohio Constitution provides a general right to bear arms, the state certainly does not have a “clear public policy” of allowing employees to possess firearms on the premises of their private employers. To the contrary, the Ohio legislature has specifically provided that employers may limit their employees’ rights to bear arms:

Nothing in this section shall negate or restrict a rule, policy, or practice of a private employer that is not a private college, university, or other institution of higher education concerning or prohibiting the presence of firearms on the private employer’s premises or property, including motor vehicles owned by the private employer.

Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.126(C)(1).” UPS was thus plainly within its rights, as codified in § 2923.126(C)(1), to prohibit its employees from possessing firearms in the parking area. Because [the plaintiff] cannot show that UPS violated a clear public policy of the state of Ohio, his wrongful-termination claim fails as a matter of law.” The Court also held that the plaintiff’s arguments concerning pretext were misplaced since no law had been violated and he was not a member of a protected class. Wanting to keep his gun away from his allegedly suicidal wife, while commendable if true, did not affect the employer’s right to terminate him for violating policy.

Insomniacs can read the full court opinion at http://

Stark County Court of Appeals Dismisses Whistleblower Retaliation Claim as Untimely

Earlier this month, the Stark County Court of Appeals dismissed as untimely a claim for wrongful constructive discharge based on an employee’s written allegations of theft against his supervisor to the Board President and city law director. Miller v. Rodman Pub. Library Bd. of Trustees, 2009-Ohio-573. In that case, the plaintiff maintenance supervisor wrote the President of a public library and the city law director about his suspicions that his supervisor – the Library’s Director of Operations – was stealing chairs from the library. When no action was taken for several months, the plaintiff supervisor resigned his position, citing his prior allegations. Just a few weeks later, the Operations Director was arrested, pled guilty, paid restitution and was incarcerated for a period of time. Five months after he resigned, the plaintiff supervisor filed suit against the library, claiming that he was constructively discharged in violation of Ohio’s Whistleblower statute and public policy. The trial court dismissed his claims for being filed more than 180 days after his alleged constructive discharge and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

The court found that Ohio Revised Code § 4113.52(D) required any civil action under the Whistleblower statute to be filed within 180 days. The Court of Appeals refused to consider the supervisor’s argument that the 180 should not begin to run until the Director had been arrested because the supervisor failed to file any response to the Library’s motion to dismiss at the trial court level. The Court also refused to recognize a public policy claim because the sole source of public policy identified to support that claim was the whistleblower statute (which required a claim to be filed within 180 days).

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal on Whether Wrongful Discharge Claim Is Valid Based on Safety Concerns Shared with Insurance Auditor

Today, the Supreme Court dismissed on procedural grounds an appeal of a case which has captured the attention of employment attorneys throughout the state. On February 6, 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 in a document of fire alarm inspections. The Court held today that there was no final appealable order from the trial court because that court had entered summary judgment in favor of the employer on several claims and then the plaintiff appealed only after voluntarily dismissing his remaining claims. Without a final appealable order, the plaintiff had no jurisdiction to appeal to the Ohio Court of Appeals and the employer could not appeal to the Supreme Court.

As reported in the July 9, 2007 FYI, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer on the wrongful discharge claim after the plaintiff was fired for insubordination after expressing concern about the employer’s fire alarm system with an insurance agent who had been present to inspect the employer’s premises and provide an insurance quote. Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc., 2007-Ohio-865 (3/2/07). Notably, the plaintiff had not been fired several years earlier when he reported to the fire department that one of the fire alarms had malfunctioned during a fire. Instead, he was transferred to another position which made him responsible for the fire alarm system. A few days prior to his termination for insubordination, the employer had specifically prohibited all employees from speaking with the insurance agent who was scheduled to inspect the premises. Although the plaintiff had not been specifically authorized in writing to meet with the insurance agent, he says that he had been asked to fill in for an absent employee. He then provided a report to the agent about overdue fire alarm inspections and noted that “suspiciously” one of the overdue inspections had not been included on the report. Plaintiff testified that he did not want to be blamed for the omission.

The employer argued that no public policy was jeopardized or implicated by the plaintiff’s termination as required by Ohio law. “Moreover, Plaintiff's statements did not indicate a concern for work place safety. The plain language of his comments only indicates his own suspicion that the missing inspection report is an attempt by Defendant to set him up for a deficient job performance.” However, the Court of Appeals rejected this argument: “[T]he employee's intent is largely irrelevant in an analysis of the clarity element of a wrongful discharge claim. What is relevant is whether [plaintiff] did in fact report information to the inspector that encompassed a public policy favoring workplace safety. If [plaintiff] did so, then the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.” Under state and federal law, “[t]here is a clear public policy favoring workplace fire safety. Therefore, retaliation against employees who raise concerns relating to workplace fire safety contravenes a clear public policy. . . . An employee who reports fire safety concerns to the employer's insurance inspector, regardless of the employee's intent in doing so, is protected from being fired solely for the sharing of the safety information.”

The Court of Appeals also rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff had failed to report his concerns to a government agency and chose, instead, an insurance agent. The Court determined that this argument “ignores the fact that an insurer's requirements may function to avoid fire safety defects. When such requirements are imposed, or higher premiums are the alternative, an employer . . . is motivated to cure safety defects. The market thus plays a role different from that of government, which may issue citations, but perhaps more immediate and compelling. And, making the insurer aware of defects through its representative furthers the public interest in effective fire safety measures.”

The Court of Appeals also rejected the argument that an “employee must make some formal announcement that his statements are being made for the purpose of protecting the public policy favoring workplace safety. Employers are presumed to be sophisticated enough to comply with the workplace safety laws. When an employer directs employees to not speak to an insurance representative inspecting a premises, an implication arises that the employer wishes to cover up defects, including those that create a danger to employees. Supporting the employer's conduct endorses its efforts to conceal potential dangers. As the Jermer court recognized, the Supreme Court views employee complaints as critical to the enforcement of the State's public policy. We would be minimizing the importance of these complaints and the State's public policy were we to concentrate on the employee's intent in raising the safety concern rather than on whether the employee's complaints related to the public policy and whether the employer fired the employee for raising the concern.”

During the February 2008 oral argument, the Supreme Court was told that there was no authority supporting the appellate court’s holding that whistleblowing claims can exist even when the whistleblower did not share his or her concerns with a government agency or with management. Some of the justices’ questions indicated that they were skeptical of drawing a bright line for whistleblowing claims which would limit them to government agents or management. Rather, a suggestion was made that public policy might be better served if whistleblower claims were recognized when the concerns were shared with anyone with power to remedy an unsafe situation. The employer’s attorney suggested that such a rule could lead to whistleblower claims being brought when employees merely reported their concerns to co-workers or to their spouses. Questions then focused on whether the insurance auditor could have improved an allegedly unsafe condition such that public policy would be served by recognizing a whistleblower claim when the concerns are shared with an insurance company. Apparently, the trial court record had not been sufficiently developed on that point.

Months after oral arguments, the Supreme Court extended jurisdiction over an additional issue: whether the clarity element had been satisfied in the public policy claim.

As readers of this blog know, the Sixth Circuit last week dismissed whistleblowing and wrongful discharge claims when the employee failed to report his concerns to the appropriate government agency after making internal reports. See:

Sixth Circuit: State and Federal Whistleblower Statutes Do Not Protect Internal Reporting by Employee Until He Investigates and Reports to Government

Today, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of whistleblowing and public policy claims by the terminated officer of a financial institution who had provided information about misconduct to his supervisors that lead to his former boss being fired. Hill v. Mr. Money Finance Co., No. 07-3907. The Court found that the plaintiff’s activities were not protected by state or federal whistleblowing statutes or public policy because, among other things, he was fired before he reported the misconduct to government authorities.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was hired as a Senior Vice President and was permitted by the company president to work three days each week in the office (since he lived approximately 90 miles away). At some point, he provided about 54 pages of evidence to a member of the Board of Directors about misconduct by the company’s president, including questionable credit card charges (for, among other things, flowers and lingerie), and two questionable loans. This information was forwarded to the CEO and ultimately to outside counsel, which arranged for the president to resign. None of this was reported to any federal or regulatory authorities. That same Board member was eventually hired as the new president and he terminated some of the “perks” of the plaintiff’s position, including his ability to work from home or receive a car allowance. When the plaintiff sought an increase in compensation to reflect the changes, the new president instead arranged for him to interview with other companies that would consider his compensation needs.

The plaintiff then attended a seminar where he learned about Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) filed with the federal law enforcement and the Treasury Department concerning improper loans. He informed the new president that he believed that the former president’s misconduct was required to be documented in a SAR, but the new president failed to take any action on this information or learn about the SAR process. A few weeks later, the new president decided to eliminate the plaintiff’s SVP job as part of a reorganization. However, before the plaintiff was so informed of the reorganization, he sent a letter to the Board and the bank’s compliance officer about his concern that the bank was required to file a SAR concerning the former president’s misconduct. In particular, he believed it was illegal not to submit a SAR under the circumstances. The bank’s outside counsel refused to disclose whether a SAR had been filed, but responded “that [the plaintiff’s] approach to the situation created ‘disturbing problems’; that Mr. Money has no problem with filing an SAR because it has no reason to protect the resigned [former president]; and that if [the plaintiff] wanted to file an SAR, he should ‘go ahead.’” Apparently unaware that the plaintiff had already raised the issue with the current president, the attorney also expressed displeasure “at [the plaintiff] choosing to ignore ‘the chain of command,’ and suggested that [the plaintiff] ‘manufactured this issue for reasons that have nothing to do with’ filing a SAR.” Nonetheless, the attorney advised the compliance officer to “seek clarification from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”), a division of the Treasury Department, whether an SAR needed to be filed.” The compliance officer sought clarification about one of the two improper loans and was told that it was not criminal misconduct which required a SAR.

Eleven days after informing the Board that he felt a SAR was necessary, the plaintiff was fired in the reorganization based on the needs of the business and his requested compensation. He then provided a letter he had mailed the day before detailing how he felt retaliated against for reporting the prior president’s misconduct when his working conditions had been changed by the current president. Two months later, the plaintiff filed suit and then filed a SAR.

The Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim that his termination violated Ohio’s Whistleblower statute at Ohio Revised Code § 4113.52. The Court concluded that an employee is only protected “from retaliation ‘as long as he made a ‘reasonable and good faith effort to determine the accuracy’ of each informational element.’” The Court did not believe that the plaintiff satisfied this requirement of the Ohio statute despite evidence that he:

1) “gathered the concerns of multiple employees”; (2) assembled these concerns “into a written report,” which he presented to [the Board member]; (3) sought “additional information” on a credit card account when another employee brought her concerns to him, which entailed “obtaining online account information”; (4) reviewed “approximately 54 pages of MasterCard statements, which revealed the specifics of [the former president’s] activity”; (5) “pulled files to review loans” made to [an] (individual with the Ohio address, whose loan documents were delivered to New Jersey) and [a] singer; (6) “read the statutes relating to embezzlement and bank fraud.”

While the plaintiff “demonstrate[d] that he transmitted the concerns of multiple employees to [the Board member]. However, . . . serving as a “mere conduit” of information does not by itself amount to a reasonable and good faith effort” under the Ohio Whistleblower statute. “[I]t is clear that only those employees in the chain of command – only those “conduits” – who satisfy the requirement to make a reasonable and good faith effort to determine the accuracy of information they received and passed on are protected under the statute.”

The Court also rejected the plaintiff’s argument that he had submitted a written report to the Board member when he assembled the 54 pages of evidence of the misconduct, including his handwritten notes on some of the pages. Rather, the evidence “likewise fails to show that [the plaintiff] sought any information beyond that contained in the statements printed by another employee. He states that he did not know nor seek to ascertain whether the bank conducted an audit on the credit card or exactly how much money [the former president] paid back, if any.” The Court was also troubled by the amount of effort which the plaintiff put into determining whether the misconduct was criminal – or even felonious. “Merely stating in a sworn affidavit that he ‘believed that these serious crimes were felonies’ may conceivably satisfy the requirement that the employee reasonably believed a felony occurred, but it does not satisfy the requirement to make a reasonable and good faith effort to determine the accuracy of that belief. Even if it is not inconceivable that a jury would find reasonable and good faith effort with regard to the first informational component (occurrence of misconduct), it is far less conceivable with regard to the second informational component (criminality of misconduct), and wholly inconceivable with regard to the third informational component (felonious nature of misconduct). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s decision as to [the plaintiff’s] claim under the Ohio Whistleblower Statute, on the grounds that [the plaintiff] did not proffer sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to his reasonable and good faith effort to determine the accuracy of the information he reported.”

The Court also affirmed the dismissal of the federal whistleblowing claims because the plaintiff failed to “establish that his conduct qualifies for whistleblower protection under Federal Whistleblower Statutes [at 31 U.S.C. §5328 and 12 U.S.C. §1831j] , because [he] did not file protected information with the federal agencies specified in the statutes until after Defendants terminated his employment, and his ‘internal whistle-blowing’ to . . . the Board members does not satisfy statutory requirements.” As explained by the district court, “The language of sections 1831j and 5328(a) is clear and unambiguous. If the plaintiff did not report the relevant information, himself or through a conduit, to a federal banking agency, the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, or any federal supervisory agency, before being discharged or otherwise discriminated against . . . then the plaintiff is not protected by these whistle-blower protection laws.” More pointedly, “[a]lthough [the plaintiff] “had threatened to file an SAR on more than one occasion, and even announced his intent to do so, [he] did not actually file an SAR until after Defendants fired him.” Statutory language is clear that retaliation must follow the provision of information to a specified federal authority.”

The Court likewise affirmed the dismissal of the public policy claim. As explained by the district court: Because the plaintiff “did not report criminal activity within the corporations to anyone outside of the companies with any authority or oversight over the Defendants’ industries until after he was terminated,” [the plaintiff’s] actions “do not fulfill the goals of these statutes or of the public policy behind these statutes.” According to the Court, “[t]he obvious implication of [Ohio decisions] is that an employee who fails to strictly comply with the requirements of [the shistleblower statute] cannot base a [public policy] claim solely upon the public policy embodied in that statute.”

“[T]here is no genuine material issue as to whether [the plaintiff] reported anything outside the company – and as we agreed above, he did not. [The plaintiff’s] conduct did not fulfill the goals of the identified public policies, not solely because [he] did not comply with statutory requirements, but also because [he] failed to report, as required by the clear public policies he identified. Holding that a public policy in favor of reporting crimes requires that a possible crime actually be reported is not at odds with lower court decisions [he] cites in support of his claim.”

For some reason, the Court found distinguishable other public policy claims which protected internal whistleblowers simply because they involved different public policies. Rather “all of [those] cases deal with the policy favoring workplace safety. “

The Court likewise faulted the plaintiff for failing to identify any other specific public policy which prohibited retaliation against employees engaged in his behavior. The Plaintiff “does not match the “source” to the clear policy: we are left guessing as to which of these numerous statutes manifests a clear public policy against the “dismissal of bank employees in retaliation for reporting unlawful conduct by the officers of financial institutions,” let alone what specific statutory language expresses said policy clearly. Even if such a policy were clearly manifest, this claim fails for the same reasons as above – there was no “reporting” of violations to external authorities. Since [the plaintiff] did not establish the clarity element of the tort, whether he has established the jeopardy element is moot.”

Even if the Court did not think much of the plaintiff’s retaliation claims, it dismissed the Defendants’ request for sanctions for pursuing a frivolous claim.

Insomniacs can read the full option at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0099n-06.pdf.

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.

Ohio Court Dismisses Physical Therapist's Public Policy and Whistleblower Claims Against Non-Profit Employer For Not Alleging Criminal Misconduct.

Late last month, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment entered for a non-profit employer of a physical therapist who had claimed that she had been wrongfully discharge in violation of public policy and Ohio’s Whistleblower statute. Duvall v. United Rehabilitation Servs. of Greater Dayton, 2008-Ohio-6231. The court held that the public policy claim failed because the Ohio statute which prohibited professional associations from interfering with the professional judgment of a physical therapist did not apply to non-profit employers. In addition, the court held that the whistleblower statute only applied to allegations of criminal conduct, which the plaintiff had not raised before being terminated.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff provided hydrotherapy to patients in a heated swimming pool. Before being terminated, she had complained to her employer about the temperature of and amount of chlorine in the pool. She also complained “about the fact that URS required her to obtain a supervisor’s approval in order to suspend or discontinue hydrotherapy regimen for patients.” She ultimately was fired for placing “a patient with cerebral palsy in a supine position in the pool despite her knowledge that the patient was afraid of being placed in such a position” in violation of a “policy which prohibited staff from using “idiosyncratic aversives that are frightening to the consumer.’”

In her claim, the plaintiff alleged that the employer violated Ohio Revised Code § 1785.03, which provides in pertinent part that “[n]o professional association formed for the purpose of providing a combination of the professional services *** of *** physical therapists authorized under sections 4755.40 to 4755.56 of the Revised Code ***shall control the professional clinical judgment exercised within accepted and prevailing standards of practice of a licensed *** physical therapist *** rendering care, treatment, or professional advice to an individual patient.” As mentioned, the court rejected this claim because the non-profit employer was not subject to R.C. 1785.02 and no similar statute applied to non-profit organizations. Further, the court likewise rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the employer’s attempt to supervise her violated Ohio Administrative Code. §4755-27-02, which precluded licensed physical therapists from delegating their professional duties and responsibilities. Rather, the court noted that there is no statutory or administrative prohibition on all supervision of physical therapists.

Finally, the court followed prior interpretations of Ohio Revised Code § 4113.52, which prohibits an employer from taking disciplinary or retaliatory action against an employee for reporting criminal violations of certain laws. Because none of the complaints made by the plaintiff about the pool’s temperature or chlorine level involved criminal actions, none of those complaints were protected by the whistleblower statute.

Insomniacs may read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/2/2008/2008-ohio-6231.pdf.

Supreme Court Rejects Public Policy Claims for Age Discrimination, Shortening Time for Bringing Discrimination Claims Against Ohio Employers

On September 27, 2007, the Ohio Supreme Court issued a 6-1 decision holding that public policy wrongful discharge claims (based on prohibitions against age discrimination) may no longer be brought against employers subject to Ohio Revised Code § 4112 (governing employment discrimination). The rationale for this holding is that ORC § 4112 already provides sufficient remedies for injured plaintiffs without having to recognize a common law remedy. This holding will likely be applied to other employment discrimination claims as well. The Court refused to address whether the holding will apply to employers who are NOT subject to ORC § 4112 (i.e., employers with less than 4 employees, etc.). The practical effect of this decision is to reduce the statute of limitations for ORC § 4112 claims of employment discrimination seeking damages to only 180 days (or 6 months), not four years as was available for common law public policy claims. (Plaintiffs still retain the right for six years to seek backpay, attorneys' fees, and reinstatement under ORC § 4112.14). Accordingly, the plaintiff’s claim in this case was dismissed for being filed beyond the 180 day limitations period. Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 2007-Ohio-4921.

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. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with an attorney. Insomniacs may read a copy of the decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-4921.pdf.