Croce v. Ohio State Univ. Bd. of Trustees
Case Details
- Judge(s)
- Sadler
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Excerpt
Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12(C) breach of contract constitutional rights federal preemption declaratory judgment. Plaintiff filed this claim against defendant following misconduct proceedings based on his research practices and the non-disciplinary actions that resulted. The court found that plaintiff failed to state a claim for breach of contract because consulting income was not addressed in anything plaintiff submitted that could be his employment contract. Further, the court determined that the issue of how the proceedings were handled was preempted by federal law. The court found that it did not have jurisdiction over plaintiff's constitutional claims. Finally, the court determined that because plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief were subsumed into plaintiff's contract claim, that claim must fail as well. Therefore, the court granted defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings and plaintiff's claim was dismissed.
What This Ruling Means
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Similar Rulings
Civ.R. 56, hostile work environment, constructive discharge. Plaintiff failed to produce a genuine issue as to any material fact that he was subjected to a hostile work environment based on his race or national origin, or that he was constructively discharged. The alleged hostile actions and commentary made by other employees were not racially based and did not materially disrupt plaintiff's work. As plaintiff's experiences amounted to no more than ordinary tribulations of the workplace, plaintiff's hostile work environment claims failed. For the same reasons, plaintiff failed to sustain his constructive discharge claim. Summary judgment was granted in favor of defendant pursuant to Civ.R. 56.
Civ.R. 56; motion for summary judgment; University of Toledo Athletic Department; athletics; negligent misrepresentation; promissory estoppel; negligence; discretionary immunity. In an action where plaintiff was removed from University of Toledo's women's soccer team, the court found that defendant was entitled to discretionary immunity for the decision to remove plaintiff from the team. Defendant was entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for negligent misrepresentation because plaintiff failed to demonstrate that defendant supplied false information to plaintiff that the document plaintiff signed was a National Letter of Intent, and therefore, plaintiff failed to satisfy all the elements of the claim. Defendant was also entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for promissory estoppel because the court found that plaintiff's relationship with University of Toledo was contractual in nature, and therefore, the claim failed as a matter of law. Defendant was further entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff's claim for negligence as the court concluded that plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for the claim since plaintiff pointed to no facts or supportive law that would allow the court to conclude that a duty of care existed to provide a safe team environment free from abuse, harassment, ridicule, embarrassment, and hostility. Judgment for defendant.
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.