Wrongful Termination Cases

Office of Administrative hearings had subject matter jurisdiction over contested case where administrative law judge chose to credit testimony regarding whether grievance was timely filed

Office of Administrative hearings had subject matter jurisdiction over contested case where administrative law judge chose to credit testimony regarding whether grievance was timely filed

Unemployment compensation just cause. The evidence presented at the agency hearing did not support the agency's finding that the plaintiff knew about the policy for which she was fired.

CIVIL - summary judgment deposition testimony Civ.R. 56 factual testimony/legal conclusions genuine issues of material fact workers' compensation retaliation R.C. 4123.90 disability discrimination R.C. 4112.02 Ohio public policy wrongful termination jeopardy, clarity and causation workplace safety Article II, Sections 34 and 35 of the Ohio Constitution R.C. 4101.11 and .12 R.C. 4121.13(A) and .17(A) OSHA 29 U.S.C. 654(a)(1) and (2)

Civ.R. 56(C), R.C. 4112. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff Guess' claim for retaliation and Plaintiffs' claims for racial discrimination and hostile work environment created by racial harassment. The Court found that Plaintiff Guess' retaliation claim was time-barred. Additionally, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish that Defendants treated a non-protected, similarly-situated person more favorably. Also, the Court found that Plaintiffs could not establish that any alleged harassment was severe enough to create a hostile work environment or that it was based on race. Because there was no genuine issues of material fact that Plaintiffs could not establish their prima facie cases, the Court found that Defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiffs' claims.

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

Arbitration arbitration award arbitrator R.C. 2711.10 vacate award exceed authority essence of the agreement de novo review. The common pleas court erred in granting the appellee's motion to vacate the arbitration award. An arbitration award must be vacated if the arbitrator exceeds his authority or the award does not draw its essence from the parties' agreement. An award draws its essence from the agreement when it is rationally derived from the terms of the agreement. The appellant charged a member of the appellee union with gross insubordination and conduct unbecoming. Under the parties' collective bargaining agreement, gross insubordination is punishable by termination, demotion, or suspension exceeding 72 hours without pay insubordination is punishable by official reprimand and suspension of up to 72 hours without pay and conduct unbecoming is punishable by official reprimand and suspension of up to 24 hours without pay. The questions submitted to the arbitrator were whether the appellant had just cause to suspend the union member for 24 hours and issue him a written reprimand, and if not, to determine the appropriate remedy. The arbitrator found that the union member's conduct was not insubordinate but was unbecoming. The arbitrator awarded compensation for any lost wages and benefits resulting from the union member's 24-hour suspension but retained the written reprimand in his personnel file. The award resolved the questions submitted to arbitration and was rationally derived from the collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator did not exceed his authority in issuing the award, and the award drew its essence from the agreement. Therefore, the common pleas court erred in vacating the award.