Wrongful Termination Cases

The trial court properly granted summary judgment where there were no genuine issues of material fact because appellant failed to demonstrate any evidence that the decedent's employer or co-employees deliberately intended to cause his death as is required by R.C. 2745.01.

Workers' compensation—Whether a claimant has voluntarily retired or has abandoned the workforce is a question of fact for the Industrial Commission to determine—A court must uphold a factual determination by the commission so long as it is supported by some evidence in the record, regardless of whether evidence supporting a contrary conclusion also exists, even if the contrary evidence is greater in quality or quantity—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

REPORTED ORDER Granting Motion to Remand Granting [8] Motion to Stay. The plaintiffs claim is REMANDED to the Secretary of the Army, who is directed to submit the matter to the ABCMR. The plaintiff shall apply to the ABCMR by filing a DD Form 149 with the ABCMR on or before 9/4/2020. The ABCMR shall determine by 11/30/2020 whether the Army committed an error or injustice. The defendant shall file by 12/14/2020, a status report. The ABCMR shall render its decision by 2/22/2021. The defendant shall file a status report informing the Court of the ultimate determination of the ABCMR by 3/8/2021. The case is hereby STAYED until further order of the Court. Signed by Judge Richard A. Hertling. (agg) Service on parties made.

APPELLATE REVIEW – DAMAGES – MITIGATION — R.C. 3319.16: The trial court did not abuse its discretion in reversing the board of education's decision to terminate a teacher's employment where the court conducted its own review of the evidence as permitted by R.C. 3319.16 and determined that the board's finding of good and just cause to terminate was not supported by the weight of the evidence. Although the trial court's statement that a former teacher whose employment was wrongfully terminated was not obligated to mitigate her damages was not a correct statement of law, the court properly declined to diminish the teacher's back pay award because the board failed to meet its burden to prove that substantially-equivalent positions had been available or the amount that the former teacher could have earned in appropriate employment in mitigation of damages.