Last month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed an employer’s trial verdict on the discharge of an unclassified university employee on the grounds that the basis for his termination – that the university president believed that he had engaged in visa fraud based on a federal investigation which did not result in an indictment – did not constitute documented “just cause” based on applicable laws, rules and regulations. Fendley v. Wright State Univ., 2019-Ohio-1963. The university’s policy required "documented just cause as provided in applicable laws, rules or regulations.” However, the belief of the university president was never documented and merely being under investigation for potential wrongdoing does not violate any law, rule or regulation.
According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff was an unclassified staff member for 11 years. He and two other employees were administratively suspended in May with pay pending a federal and internal investigation into alleged visa fraud. After meeting with the federal investigators, the president believed that the plaintiff had engaged in visa fraud and decided to terminate his employment in August. The plaintiff was never indicted or charged with visa fraud. Under university policy, an employee with 11 years of service could be terminated without cause with 9 months notice and could be immediately terminated “for documented just cause as provided in applicable laws, rules, and regulations or because of financial exigency.” The trial court and magistrate determined that the University had just cause because of the ongoing federal investigation and the belief formed by the university president after meeting with federal investigators. The Court of Appeals reversed.
The Court found that the policy did not permit the university to simply fire the employee for any lawful reason as would exist in employment at will. The policy did not provide that the employee could be immediately terminated “as provided at law.” The Court rejected the belief of the university president as a basis for the termination decision because it was not mentioned in either letter that suspended the plaintiff or in the letter terminating his employment. Accordingly, the belief of the university president was not “documented” as required by the university policy. It also refused to find the federal investigation into potential wrongdoing to be sufficient to constitute just cause because it was not indicative of any fault by the plaintiff. No identified law, rule or regulation is violated by being under investigation for potential wrongdoing. The university’s internal investigation likewise never documented any violation by plaintiff of any law, rule or regulation.
The dissent would have affirmed on the basis of the belief of the university president.
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.
