Wrongful Termination Cases

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment against appellant, who had sued his employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Appellant, an at-will employee, failed to satisfy the "jeopardy" element that must be met to maintain such actions. While appellant claimed that his employer failed to provide a safe workplace as required by R.C. 4101.11 and R.C. 4101.12, appellant did not make clear to his employer when he complained about another employee that he was invoking a governmental policy as the basis for his complaint, rather than his own self-interest. Appellant gave the employer no indication that his complaint concerned the public at large rather than himself. Because this failure was fatal to appellant's claim, we need not address issues concerning the other elements needed to establish wrongful termination in violation of public policy. Judgment affirmed.

Summary judgment/R.C. 4723.01/4723.74/4723.741/Employer/Employee

Workers' compensation—Independent contractors and employees—Right to control manner or means of work—Some-evidence standard—Some evidence supported determination of Bureau of Workers' Compensation that workers were company's employees rather than independent contractors—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

The plaintiff sought to recover damages and other relief for, inter alia, fraudulent misrepresentation in connection with an alleged conspiracy by the defendants, the city and two of its former employees, to fill the position of police chief in the defendant city's police department. The plaintiff, a former officer in the city's police department, had previously brought a separate action against the city alleging wrongful termination. The parties reached a settlement agreement with respect to the termina- tion action. The plaintiff thereafter filed the complaint alleging a conspir- acy, and the city filed a motion to dismiss the counts of the complaint against it, which alleged fraudulent misrepresentation during settlement negotiations and computer crime, on the basis that the claims were barred by absolute immunity under the litigation privilege. The trial court denied the motion with respect to the claim of computer crime, and the city appealed to this court. Held that the trial court properly denied the city's motion to dismiss the count alleging computer crime on the basis of the city's failure to establish a nexus between the allega- tions of that count and any activity falling within the bounds of the litigation privilege; the count did not contain any allegations with respect to communications involving the city and the conduct alleged could not reasonably be construed as stemming from the plaintiff's prior action against the city, but, rather, the allegations set forth in the count concern the mechanics of how the city's employees carried out a cheating scheme using computers, not any fraud or concealment thereof that occurred during the prior settlement negotiations. Argued January 20—officially released May 17, 2022