Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Jones
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- summary judgment
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Excerpt
R.C. 2953.321/sealed criminal records subject-matter jurisdiction termination of employment 42 U.S.C. 1983 and R.C. 2744.02(a)(1)/ immunity implied contract breach summary judgment. A party cannot raise for the first time on appeal arguments that were not presented in the trial court. Appellant failed to plead in her complaint allegations that appellee violated her rights in violation of public policy and that appellee violated her rights by using privileged and sealed records in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 and the Ohio Constitution to terminate her employment. Those two issues are not properly before this court. The trial court did not err in granting appellee's motion for summary judgment. Appellant failed to exhaust her administrative remedies and further failed to allege any statutory claims. The trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction where appellant's claims were subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Appellant failed to plead a violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983. Nonetheless, under R.C. Chapter 2744, appellee is a political subdivision, and appellant failed to establish any exceptions that would apply here and summary judgment was properly granted on this issue. Appellant provided no evidence that the detective acted with malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment on this issue.t
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
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.