Franklin County Appeals Court: Doesn’t Pay to Be Too Clever By Half

Last week, the Franklin County Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the defendant employer and ordered the rescission of a severance agreement where a typographical error in the agreement provided the employee with twelve extra months of severance pay which the employer had not intended to provide. Faivre v. DEX Corp. Northeast, 2009-Ohio-2660 (6/9/09). The employee admittedly had been told that the employer was only offering him three months of severance and he indicated that he would need to have at least twelve months. When he reviewed the agreement in detail after returning home, he realized that the offered severance agreement (which had been drafted by the employer and had already been signed by the employer’s Senior Vice President of Human Resources) promised to pay him severance through 2007 instead of three months later in 2006. Rather than clarifying the issue with the employer, he instead signed and returned the agreement. Quickly realizing its error, the employer immediately asked him to sign a revised page and said that if he did not agree to reform the agreement, it would consider the agreement to be rescinded due to mistake.

Instead, the employee filed suit against the employer for breach of contract. The trial court ruled in favor of the employer, but ordered a reformation of the contract to provide for the three months of severance pay initially offered by the employer. Both sides appealed. On appeal the court of appeals agreed that the parole evidence rule – which typically would bar extrinsic or outside evidence to contradict the clear terms of a contract – did not bar evidence of mistake. In this case, the employer made a mistake and the employee was admittedly aware of the mistake.

The court also agreed that the trial court had authority to reform the contract. However, the court found that was not a proper remedy because there had never been a mutual agreement on the amount of severance. The employer offered three months and the employee wanted twelve. Because there had never been a “meeting of the minds,” there could be no contract to resurrect by reformation.

The court agreed to rescind the contract altogether (meaning the employee would receive no severance). This was pursuant to a Restatement provision:

Where a mistake of one party at the time a contract was made as to a basic assumption on which he made the contract has a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that is adverse to him, the contract is voidable
by him if he does not bear the risk of the mistake . . .

Thus, unless the mistaken party bears the risk of a mistake, a court may rescind a contract if: (1) one party made a mistake at the time the parties executed the contract, (2) the mistake had a material effect on the agreed exchange of performances that was adverse to the mistaken party, and (3) the other party had reason to know of the mistake.

The court rejected the employee’s argument that the employer had assumed the risk of mistake when it unilaterally prepared and presented the agreement. First, the employee knew about the mistake because the agreement’s terms did not match what he had been told in his exit interview. Finally, the court refused to put the risk on the employer even though it negligently drafted the agreement: “Pursuant to Section 154 of the Second Restatement of Contracts:

A party bears the risk of a mistake when

(a) the risk is allocated to him by agreement of the
parties, or
(b) he is aware, at the time the contract is made, that
he has only limited knowledge with respect to the facts to
which the mistake relates but treats his limited knowledge as
sufficient, or
(c) the risk is allocated to him by the court on the
ground that it is reasonable in the circumstances to do so.

. . .

Subsection (c) is a "catchall provision" that permits a court to allocate the
risk of a mistake to the mistaken party if, under the totality of the circumstances, it would be more equitable or reasonable to do so. . . . " '[A] party's negligence is immaterial where the mistake is in the expression of the contract and the other party knew of the mistake and took advantage of it.' "

. . .

As we concluded above, [the employee] had reason to know that the severance agreement contained a typographical error. Instead of seeking clarification regarding the length of the severance period, [the employee] attempted to take advantage of [the employer’s] error. Therefore, equity and reasonableness do not require us to place the risk of the mistake on [the employer] due to its negligence.

Insomniacs can read the full decision at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/10/2009/2009-ohio-2660.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.

EEOC Announces Consent Decree Settling Sex Discrimination and Retaliation Suit With Two West Virginia Employers and Obtaining $115K for Three Women.

Yesterday, the EEOC announced that it had reached a $115,000 settlement in a sex discrimination lawsuit it had filed against West Virginia employers, Brooks Run Mining Company and staffing firm Neal & Associations, in federal court (Case No. 5:08-CV-0071). In its lawsuit, the EEOC had alleged that the defendant employers violated Title VII when female “security guards as a class were discriminated against because of their sex. The EEOC asserted that once the women complained about sexual harassment, they were prevented – either by layoffs or transfers – from working at the Brooks Run Cucumber mine site, although security jobs were available to men.”

According to the EEOC, “the three-year consent decree settling the suit provides for a monetary settlement to three women” who were “former security guards at the Cucumber mine site. In addition to monetary relief, the decree provides for significant remedial relief, including promoting supervisor accountability. The settlement also requires yearly training for all management staff on employee rights and employer obligations under federal and state anti-discrimination laws, with an emphasis on sex discrimination.”

Insomniacs can read the full press release at http://www.eeoc.gov/press/6-11-09a.html.

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 Department of Insurance Explains How Ohio’s Newly-Amended Mini-COBRA Coordinates with Federal Stimulus Act.

Last week, the Ohio Department of Insurance issued guidelines about how employees of small employers (i.e., 20 or fewer employees) who are involuntarily terminated may qualify for continued health insurance that is 65% subsidized by the federal government. Governor Strickland signed legislation which amended Ohio’s mini-COBRA (at Ohio Revised Code §3923.38 and §1751.53) and will affect health insurance policies issued or renewed for small employers after April 1, 2009. Among other changes, the statute extends the continuation period from six months to one year. The Department of Insurance also includes model notices on its website which all small employers and non-ERISA self-insured employers must use to notify laid off and other involuntarily terminated employees of their rights under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”) to continue their health insurance with 65% of the cost subsidized by the federal government. Insurers are also required to notify employees receiving continuation coverage since February 17 of their ARRA rights.

Unlike the subsidized COBRA continuation under the ARRA, under Ohio’s mini-COBRA, small employers are not required to front 65% of the insurance premium; rather, the insurance company will handle the former employee’s continuation payments and also receive the tax credits. Also unlike the federal ARRA, employees of small Ohio employers do not get a free “do-over” or extended eligibility period if they failed to elect continuation coverage within the deadlines right after they were terminated.

Insomniacs may read the full Department of Insurance revised guidelines at http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/ConsumServ/COBRAStimulusSmallEmployers.pdf. The DOI’s model form can be accessed at http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/ConsumServ/COBRAContinuationCoverageElectionNotice.doc. Other information about ARRA and Ohio’s mini-COBRA law are available at http://www.ohioinsurance.gov/ConsumServ/COBRA.htm.

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 Supreme Court: Ohio Legislature Can Prohibit Local City Residency Requirement for Own Employees.

This morning a divided Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the Ohio General Assembly can prohibit political subdivisions and municipalities – including those organized under home rule charters – from requiring city employees to reside within city limits. Lima v. State, 2009-Ohio-2597. In that case, the challenged state statute -- Ohio Revised Code § 9.481(B)(1) -- states that “no political subdivision shall require any of its employees, as a condition of employment, to reside in any specific area of the state.” The cities of Lima and Akron challenged the constitutionality of the statute, which conflicted with local ordinances. However, the Court’s majority upheld the constitutionality of the statute: “R.C. 9.481 was enacted pursuant to Section 34 and that it prevails over conflicting local laws, because no other provision of the Constitution can ‘limit or impair’ laws enacted pursuant to Section 34.”

Insomniacs can read the Court’s full opinion at http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2597.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.

Sixth Circuit: Title VII Does NOT Protect Family and Friends of Charging Parties

This morning, a divided en banc Sixth Circuit reversed a prior panel decision rendered on March 31, 2008 in Thompson v. North American Stainless, LP, and held that Title VII only protects from retaliation individuals who have engaged in protected conduct (i.e., filed a Charge of Discrimination, opposed discrimination or participated in an investigation, etc.) and does NOT protect the family members and friends of individuals who have engaged in protected conduct. (The earlier decision was summarized here on April 10, 2008 at Sixth Circuit: Title VII Protects Family and Friends of Employees who File EEOC Charge).

As previously explained, the employer was alleged to have fired the plaintiff just three weeks after his fiance filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC against the employer. He did not allege that he personally had engaged in any protected conduct, but rather, that his termination was in retaliation for the protected conduct of his fiance. In turn, the employer asserted that he was terminated because of his job performance.

The Court examined the anti-retaliation language in Title VII:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any of his employees or applicants for employment . . . because he has opposed any practice made an unlawful employment practice by this subchapter, or because he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this subchapter.

There was nothing in this language about protecting individuals who did not engage in any protected activity under the Act. The majority found the language clear and unambiguous and elected to defer to Congressional intent to not enlarge the protected class of individuals under the statute.

In essence, plaintiff and the EEOC request that we become the first circuit court to hold that Title VII creates a cause of action for third-party retaliation on behalf of friends and family members who have not engaged in protected activity. However, we decline the invitation to rewrite the law.

. . .

In sum, no circuit court of appeals has held that Title VII creates a claim for third-party retaliation in circumstances where the plaintiff has not engaged personally in any protected activity. Although plaintiff and the EEOC argue that the language of § 704(a) is ambiguous and that enforcement of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, we disagree, as do the Third, Fifth, and Eighth Circuits, which have soundly rejected such a cause of action.

However, the court recognized the tension with the policy argument endorsed by the Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006), when it stated:

We conclude that the anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. We also conclude that the provision covers those (and only those) employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or job applicant. In the present context that means that the employer’s actions must be harmful to the point that they could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.

Nonetheless, the Court distinguished Burlington because the plaintiff in that case had engaged in protected conduct and the question presented to the court was the scope of retaliatory behavior. "We must look to what Congress actually enacted, not what we believe Congress might have passed were it confronted with the facts at bar. For the reasons we have laid out, it was not “absurd” for Congress to limit the class of persons who are entitled to sue to employees who personally opposed a practice, made a charge, assisted, or participated in an investigation. Our interpretation does not undermine the anti-retaliation provision’s purpose because retaliation is still actionable, but only in a suit by a primary
actor who engaged in protected activity and not by a passive bystander."

Insomniacs can read the full opinion at http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/09a0202p-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. 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.