Near the end of last year, the Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of statutory and common-law whistleblower/wrongful discharge claims on the ground that the plaintiff quality control manager failed to sufficiently specify the danger in writing of a defect in the production of components used in childcare products. Behm v. Progress Plastic Prods., Inc., 2007-Ohio-6357. The plaintiff claimed that he had been laid off for bringing serious concerns to management about the safety of its product. The parties agreed that the employer had manufactured parts which did not comply with its customers specifications, that the parts were supposed to support the weight of infants, that plaintiff tested the parts and found them to be too brittle for their intended purpose and that he advised his employer to recall the already shipped product:
"Attached are Melt Flow Analysis [sic] we've collected on the pad ring samples we have in Bellevue. As the higher the melt flow the more brittle the product I have serious concerns about product that has probably shipped to Evenflo. * * * The attached data does not bode well for this material having been used. We know Evenflo has product in house from 3/2 date codes, I've requested specific samples from that date be sent to Bellevue from Tiffin along with the dates of all product in stock at Tiffin. As you can see from the attached data some dates are missing and I fear they have shipped to Evenflo. We need to decide what to do as speed is of the essence in getting bad product possibly shipped to the customer from reaching consumers."
“Protection as a whistleblower requires an employee's strict compliance with the dictates of R.C. 4113.52. The statute's threshold requirements demand that both: (1) an employee reasonably believed that a statute, work rule, or company policy was violated; and (2) an employee reasonably believed the violation was (a) a misdemeanor which created imminent danger of physical harm, (b) a hazard to public health or safety, or (c) a felony. . . . R.C. 4113.52 also requires two types of notification from a person claiming protections under the statute: oral and written. Focusing on the latter, the statute demands that a person submit a written report with "sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation" to the same supervisor or officer that he orally notified. R.C. § 4113.52(A)(1)(a), (A)(3).”
The court rejected the employer’s argument that the plaintiff did not sufficiently specify the source of law which it purportedly violated. The plaintiff had testified that he knew there were criminal laws governing the production of child car seats, that he assumed similar laws existed for other child care products, and he was concerned that someone would get hurt from the defective products. As the court correctly noted, “sensible minds could differ as to whether appellant reasonably believed the violation constituted a hazard to public health or safety. Both appellant's deposition and his affidavit indicate that he in fact believed that a safety hazard existed.”
Nonetheless, the court found the plaintiff’s written notice to be insufficient under the statute. “Noticeably absent from . . . appellant's the message[] to [his boss] was any mention of a violation or even a safety concern. In fact, in appellant's deposition he stated that he did not recall ever expressing in written form a safety concern to anyone [in management]. The abovementioned messages lacked what the statute demands: sufficient detail to identify and describe a specific safety violation. . . . Nothing in appellant's messages distinguishes them from a regular quality control concern characteristic of his quality management position . . . . Thus, . . . appellant failed to comply with the statute. . . . Appellant's failure to strictly adhere to the dictates of R.C. 4113.52 by not filing a report in the manner required, prohibits him from claiming the protections of the statute.”
Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/6/2007/2007-ohio-6357.pdf.
By way of comparison and contrast, in May 2007, the Cuyahoga Court of Appeals had reversed summary judgment in favor of an employer in a lawsuit brought by a whistleblowing former quality control employee who allegedly had been similarly fired in violation of public policy for refusing to certify airplane parts as meeting the customer’s quality specifications. Zajc v. Hycomb, 172, Ohio App. 3d. 117, 2007-Ohio-2637. The Court of Appeals believed that the plaintiff had identified sufficiently clear statutory and regulatory sources of authority for this public policy claim: the Uniform Commercial Code (giving the buyer the right to reject non-conforming goods), the Products Liability Statutes (creating strict liability where the risks exceed the benefits of a design) and Federal Aviation Administration regulations which require that a production inspection system must be in place to determine, inter alia, that subcontracted parts must be as specified in the design data, that parts are be inspected, and that inspection records are maintained. The court rejected arguments that the products liability laws sufficiently protect consumers by permitting injured consumers to sue the manufacturer without permitting the manufacturer’s employees sue for wrongful discharge. http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/8/2007/2007-ohio-2637.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. 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.
