Skip to main content

Bello v. Highland Pointe Health & Rehab Ctr.

Ohio Ct. App.January 29, 2026No. 115326

Case Details

Judge(s)
E.A. Gallagher
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Excerpt

R.C. 2711.03; enforcement of arbitration provision; oral hearing unequivocally and specifically requested is mandatory; abuse of discretion. Appellants appealed the trial court's denial of their motion to stay and enforce an arbitration agreement before conducting an oral hearing as requested in their motion. We find that while an oral hearing is not always required to satisfy the "hearing" mandate of R.C. 2711.03, an oral hearing is required and shall be granted when unequivocally and specifically requested by a party pursuant to R.C. 2711.03. As such the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion to stay and enforce arbitration before conducting an oral hearing. The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court to conduct an oral hearing to determine whether the validity of the arbitration agreement is at issue.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Employees at Highland Pointe Health & Rehab Center got into a workplace dispute and wanted to take their employer to court. However, their employment contracts included arbitration agreements, which require workplace disputes to be resolved through private arbitration instead of court trials. The employer asked the trial court to enforce this arbitration agreement and block the employees from proceeding with their lawsuit. The employees specifically requested an oral hearing on this matter, but the trial court denied the employer's request without holding the hearing the employees had asked for. **What the Court Decided** The appeals court ruled that the trial court made an error. When someone clearly and specifically requests an oral hearing about enforcing an arbitration agreement, the court must grant that hearing. The case was sent back to the lower court to hold the proper hearing. **What This Means for Workers** This ruling strengthens workers' rights to have their voices heard in court proceedings, even when dealing with arbitration agreements. If you're facing a dispute about whether you must go through arbitration instead of court, you have the right to request an oral hearing where you can present your arguments in person. Courts cannot simply ignore these requests and must follow proper procedures before forcing workers into arbitration.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.