Wrongful Termination Cases

Retaliation Temporal Proximity Causation Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy Free Speech State Action. In the absence of state action, the free speech protections of the Ohio Constitution do not generally provide a basis for an at-will employee to raise a claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy against a private employer. An interval of more than three months between an allegedly protected activity and an adverse employment action is generally too long to support an inference of retaliatory causation based only on temporal proximity.

Judgment affirmed. Although the appellant designated only the trial court's final judgment in his notice of appeal, this court could address the trial court's interlocutory rulings because interlocutory orders merge with a court's final judgment. The trial court did not err by denying the appellant's motion to compel, motion for sanctions, motion to strike, or motion in limine. The appellant failed to demonstrate that his employer either waived its ability to rely on, or was prevented from relying on, his criminal background as the grounds for terminating his at-will employment. The trial court did not err by denying appellant's motion for judicial notice or motion for summary judgment. The trial court properly granted appellees summary judgment on appellant's claims of race discrimination, disability discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, unlawful aiding and abetting of discrimination, and defamation.

Collateral estoppel Whistleblower Action

Wrongful termination complaint allegations motion to seal motion to strike motion to dismiss motion for protective order final appealable order attorney-client privilege. Judgment affirmed in part reversed in part dismissed in part and remanded. The Ohio Turnpike and Infrastructure Commission's motion to dismiss the amended complaint and motion to stay and for protective order are not final appealable orders that can be reviewed in this appeal. The denial of the motion to strike and seal is a final appealable order that can be reviewed on appeal. At this initial point in the proceedings and based on the plaintiff's allegations, we find that the amended complaint is subject to the attorney-client privilege and the amended complaint should have been sealed. The matter is remanded to the trial court to seal the amended complaint and for further proceedings.