Wrongful Termination Cases

Trial court erred in excluding evidence as hearsay where evidence was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted and where probative value was not substantially outweighed by prejudicial effect in giving jury instructions that were not supported by the evidence in directing verdict on the basis of immunity where question existed whether the defendants acted in bad faith, with malice, or recklessly and in excluding expert witness on damages and not recognizing concept of constructive discharge.

Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss choice of law place of injury tort action tortious interference with employment relationship prohibiting deceptive trade practices. The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's California-law-based claims when Ohio law controlled the case. In a wrongful termination case, the place where the plaintiff lost his or her employment is the place of injury, and the place of injury presumptively controls the choice of law. In this case, Gerace lived and worked in Ohio when he was terminated from his job. The trial court did not err by dismissing plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio public policy because he failed to allege facts that jeopardized a clear public policy.

Age discrimination disability discrimination. Plaintiff filed an action alleging age discrimination and disability discrimination. Defendant formerly employed plaintiff as a tenured professor. Plaintiff is a 68-year-old-man. During the spring of 2020, plaintiff went on medical leave to undergo cardiac surgery. In the summer of 2020, defendant notified plaintiff that he was one of 96 full-time faculty members whose employment was terminated as part of a reduction in force (RIF). Defendant motioned for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff failed to establish prima facie that the RIF was discriminatory. In the context of an RIF, plaintiffs must proffer direct, circumstantial, or statistical evidence that establishes age was a factor in their termination. Plaintiff alleged that his supervisors' inquiries into whether he might soon retire and the fact that only 15% of terminated employees were under the age of 40 constituted evidence of defendant's discriminatory intent. The court found that defendant's university-wide RIF was conducted out of economic necessity, which constitutes a legitimate, non-discriminatory purpose for plaintiff's termination. Accordingly, defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted and judgment was entered in defendant's favor.