Skip to main content

Piazza v. Cuyahoga Cty. (Slip Opinion)

OhioJune 26, 2019No. 2017-1649Cited 13 times
Plaintiff WinCuyahoga County
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
French, J.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed that R.C. 2744.09(B) applies to Piazza's false-light invasion of privacy claim against Cuyahoga County, rejecting the county's assertion of political-subdivision immunity. The court held that the statute does not require an ongoing employment relationship and that the claim arose out of the employment relationship.

Excerpt

Political-subdivision tort liability—R.C. 2744.09(B)'s exception to immunity for civil actions by an employee "relative to any matter that arises out of the employment relationship between the employee and the political subdivision"—R.C. 2744.09(B) does not require that the alleged tortious conduct underlying a claim against a political subdivision have occurred during the plaintiff's employment by the political subdivision—Plaintiff's claim for false-light invasion of privacy is relative to a matter that arose out of her employment relationship with county—Court of appeals' judgment affirming trial court's rejection of county's assertion of immunity affirmed.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A former Cuyahoga County employee named Piazza sued the county for false-light invasion of privacy. This type of claim happens when someone spreads misleading information that puts a person in a false or unflattering light publicly. The county tried to get the case thrown out by claiming it had special legal protection (called immunity) that shields government employers from certain lawsuits. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of Piazza, allowing the lawsuit to proceed. The court rejected the county's claim that it was protected from this type of lawsuit. The key issue was whether Ohio law (specifically statute R.C. 2744.09(B)) applied to claims arising from employment relationships. The court determined that this law covers employment-related disputes even after the employment relationship has ended, as long as the claim stems from something that happened during employment. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling is significant because it confirms that government employees can still pursue certain legal claims against their former public employers even after leaving their jobs. Workers don't lose their right to sue for employment-related misconduct just because they're no longer employed. This protection helps ensure government employers remain accountable for their actions toward employees.

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

Browse Related

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.