Wrongful Termination Cases

R.C. 3319.081 termination of non-teaching employees due process R.C. 2506.03 administrative appeal abuse of discretion stipulation reliable evidence probative evidence preponderance of evidence waiver

The plaintiff sought damages from the defendant for the alleged wrongful termination of his employment in violation of statute (§ 31-51q). The plaintiff, who was employed as a truck driver by the defendant, alleged that his employment was terminated after raising safety complaints to the defendant. After a jury trial, the court rendered judgment for the plaintiff in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff thereafter filed a motion for attorney's fees, seeking an amount calculated pursuant to the lodestar method, in which the number of hours expended by counsel on the litigation and counsel's hourly rate are used to determine reasonable attorney's fees. The court, however, awarded attorney's fees on a one-third contingency basis. The court concluded that the plaintiff's fee agreement with his counsel was ambiguous because the agreement stated both that the law firm's employment was on a contingency fee basis and that time would be kept on an hourly basis, and, in the event a recovery is made and attorney's fees are awarded, the law firm shall receive whichever amount was greater. The plaintiff appealed and the defendant filed a cross appeal, claiming that the court erred by awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff, by failing to set aside the jury's award of damages, by rendering judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and by providing an incorrect charge to the jury. Held: 1. The trial court erred by failing to apply the lodestar method in calculating the amount of attorney's fees awarded to the plaintiff: in resolving the alleged ambiguity in the fee agreement, the court, with no further explanation, awarded attorney's fees in the amount of one third of the damages that the plaintiff received; the fee agreement contemplated both the one-third contingency and lodestar methods of calculating attorney's fees but clearly stated that the law firm shall receive as its fee whichever was the greater of the two, and, because the court failed to apply the provision of

Motion for judgment on the pleadings Civ.R. 12 question of law de novo cross-claim pro se litigant App.R. 12 App.R. 16 motion to withdraw as counsel plain error right to counsel negligence injury proximate cause negligent hiring breach of contract hostile work environment wrongful termination. The trial court did not commit plain error in granting the motion to withdraw from appellant's representation filed by the attorneys for the childcare center. Appellant did not have a right to counsel in the civil proceedings in the trial court. The assertions and allegations in appellant's cross-claims cannot be read to have pled any actionable claims against the childcare center, or the childcare center's owner, manager, or employees. Accordingly, the trial court properly granted the childcare center's motion for judgment on the pleadings.