Wrongful Termination Cases

educational service center, treasurer, special audit, findings for recovery, breach of contract, duty to defend, severance pay, vacation leave, sick leave, summary judgment, performance incentives, motion to stay discovery, consideration, illusory, public policy, R.C. 3313.22, R.C. 3319.16, liquidated damages, unenforceable penalty, unconscionability, performance, R.C. 117.36, Civ.R. 59(A)(8), newly discovered evidence

workers compensation disability and suitability of substitute employment makework

Career State employee After-acquired-evidence doctrine (McKennon rule) Procedural due process requirements.

workers compensation disability and suitability of substitute employment makework

Career State employee After-acquired-evidence doctrine (McKennon rule) Procedural due process requirements.

The trial court dismissed appellant's complaint without prejudice because it concluded that the complaint contained a "medical claim" and that appellant had failed to satisfy Civ.R. 10(D)(2), governing the pleading of such claims. The court correctly concluded that the complaint contained a "medical claim." But the dismissal order was not final and appealable, because appellant failed to show that the complaint could not be refiled. Appeal dismissed. (Froelich, J., dissenting.)

This appeal arises from Shelby County's decision to terminate Appellee's employment for non-compliance with the County's residency requirement. The Civil Service Merit Board ("CSMB") reversed the termination of Appellee's employment and reinstated him with back pay. On appeal, the Shelby County Chancery Court affirmed the CSMB's ruling. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the Chancery Court.

Appellant/employee brought this retaliatory discharge case against Appellee, his former employer. Appellant alleged that he was fired in retaliation for claiming workers' compensation benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer, finding that Appellant failed to meet his burden to show a causal connection between the filing of his workers' compensation claim and the termination of his employment. In the alternative, the trial court found that Appellee provided legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its decision to terminate Appellant's employment, and Appellant failed to meet his burden to show that the proffered reasons were pretext. Discerning no error, we affirm and remand.