Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co

The trial court improperly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant's R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim based upon the District Court's judgment of dismissal. The District Court's decision dismissing appellant's Title VII retaliation claim \with prejudice\ for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, on the unique procedural facts of this case, did not serve to bar appellant from pursuing a R.C. 4112.02 retaliation claim in state court. The District Court's judgment did not meet the first element of res judicata/claim preclusion as it was not a judgment on the merits. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the retaliation claim. However, the trial court properly accorded claim-preclusive effect to appellant's R.C. 4112.02 race discrimination claim based upon the District Court's judgment of dismissal. The judgment met all the elements of res judicata/claim preclusion. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee as to the race discrimination claim. Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is sustained in part and overruled in part. Judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. Case is remanded to the trial court.

Trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment where the evidence in support of the motion established as a matter of law that appellant was an independent contractor of appellee, not an employee. Nor did the trial court err by granting summary judgment as to appellant's claim for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and invasion of privacy where the evidence failed to create a genuine issue of fact as to the essential elements of those claims. Finally, the trial court did not err when it determined that the parties' fully integrated written agreement barred appellant's claim of unjust enrichment and that the release executed by appellant barred appellant's claims for fraud. Judgment affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. The trial court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of appellee. Under Ohio's borrowing statute, R.C. 2305.03, and controlling choice of law principles, Tennessee law applied to appellant's wrongful termination claims. Consequently, appellant's claims were time-barred under that state's statute of limitations.