Skip to main content

Jordan v. Giant Eagle Supermarket

Ohio Ct. App.December 10, 2020No. 109304Cited 10 times
Defendant WinGiant Eagle Supermarket
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Celebrezze
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
motion to dismiss

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of ContractDiscrimination

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment granting Giant Eagle's motion for judgment on the pleadings, holding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for false imprisonment and other claims were facially deficient.

Excerpt

Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12 Civ.R. 8 Civ.R. 10 pro se litigant false imprisonment confinement force threat of force breach of contract constitutional deprivation state actor discrimination. Appellant failed to plead actionable claims for false imprisonment, breach of contract, deprivation of constitutional rights, or discrimination. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings.

What This Ruling Means

**Jordan v. Giant Eagle Supermarket: Worker's Claims Dismissed for Insufficient Details** This case involved a worker named Jordan who sued Giant Eagle Supermarket claiming the company falsely imprisoned him, broke their employment contract, violated his constitutional rights, and discriminated against him. Jordan represented himself in court without a lawyer. The court ruled against Jordan and sided with Giant Eagle. The judges found that Jordan failed to provide enough specific facts and details to support any of his claims. For his false imprisonment claim, Jordan couldn't show he was actually confined or restrained by force or threats. His other claims were also too vague and didn't meet the basic legal requirements for a valid lawsuit. The trial court dismissed the case, and the appeals court agreed with that decision. This case highlights an important lesson for workers: when filing a lawsuit, you must include specific facts and details about what happened to you. Simply stating general claims like "discrimination" or "false imprisonment" isn't enough. Workers need to explain exactly what the employer did wrong, when it happened, and how it harmed them. Having a lawyer can help ensure your complaint meets these technical requirements and gives your case the best chance of success.

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

Browse more:Breach of Contract casesDiscrimination cases

Similar Rulings

Vega
2nd CircuitSep 2015
Remanded
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board
U.S. Supreme CourtApr 1941
Plaintiff Win
Coleman
7th CircuitJun 2017
Remanded
Kwan v. The Andalex Group LLC
2nd CircuitDec 2013
Mixed Result
Read Full OpinionMore Giant Eagle Supermarket RulingsAll Rulings

Browse Related

More discrimination casesMore retail employer cases

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.

Check My RightsLearn the Basics

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.