Wrongful Termination Cases

R.C. 4113.52, whistleblower, Civ.R. 12(B)(6), failure to state a claim, motion to dismiss, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy

Limitations agreement contained in an employment application is enforceable as a contract where it is supported by consideration in the form of the employer's promise to review the prospective employee's application.

Sealing of records-R.C. 2953.33(B)-Questions explicitly requiring disclosure of sealed convictions on Department of Developmental Disabilities applications to renew registration as adult-services worker did not violate R.C. 2953.33(B) because questions were directly and substantially related to appellant's position with appellee and his qualifications for adult-services registration-Court of appeals' judgment affirming appellant's termination for dishonestly answering the questions affirmed.

Trial court abused its discretion in denying motion for default on claim for breach of independent contractor agreement where plaintiff's complaint stated facts going to each element of his claim and defendant LLC failed to answer through licensed attorney. Default judgment was properly denied as to defamation claim because plaintiff's claim relied on self-republication doctrine which has not been adopted in Ohio.

Workers' compensation-Permanent total disability-Voluntary abandonment of workforce-Denial of writ of mandamus affirmed.

Trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of employer where employee failed to present evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact in support of his claims of age discrimination, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent retention.

When an employee is suing an employer for an intentional tort, the employee must present evidence that the employer possessed the actual intent to harm an employee.

intentional infliction of emotional distress, severe and debilitating, wrongful discharge, public policy, child abuse, remittitur, attorney fees, lodestar calculation, contingency fee agreement, deviation, sanctions, frivolous conduct, R.C. 2323.51, media. Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict or JNOV where sufficient evidence was presented that defendant's conduct caused plaintiff severe and debilitating emotional distress whether plaintiff's evidence actually proved her case was for the jury to determine. Plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy survived defendant's motion for directed verdict and JNOV because the plaintiff did not have an adequate remedy for wrongful termination when the defendants terminated her for not dissuading the report of child abuse. Trial court abused its discretion by ordering remittitur without considering any of the criteria that must be met before a court may grant remittitur, including that the plaintiff agreed to the reduction in damages. The trial court abused its discretion in limiting the review of attorney fees to only those incurred by the lead attorney and then deviating from the lodestar amount based solely on the contingency fee agreement. Contacting a media outlet to cover a trial does not constitute frivolous conduct in violation of R.C. 2323.51 where the information provided is protected speech and does not violate the ethical rules.