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
Showing posts with label 180 days. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 180 days. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)