Wrongful Termination Cases

A public employee, who has a property interest in his employment, may not have his employment terminated without due process. Due process requirements are met when the employee is provided with appropriate pre-termination and post-termination proceedings.

A public employee, who has a property interest in his employment, may not have his employment terminated without due process. Due process requirements are met when the employee is provided with appropriate pre-termination and post-termination proceedings.

motion to dismiss, employer intentional tort, particularity, R.C. 2745.01, summary judgment, statute of limitations, evidence, prior proceeding, judicial notice

Breach of contract Hospital termination of physician's employment contract Contractual right to exercise professional judgment Wrongful discharge and public policy Defamation and defense of qualified privilege

CIVIL - denial of judgment on the pleadings final appealable order R.C. 2744.02(C) statutory immunity employee of political subdivision school district malicious purpose, in bad faith, wanton or reckless negligence exceptions to immunity individual capacity official capacity R.C. 2744.02(B) R.C. 2744.03(A)(6).

The plaintiff, Sean Gannon, appealed from orders of the Superior Court relating his motion to vacate an arbitration award issued in connection with the termination of his employment as a firefighter by the defendant, the City of Pawtucket, in November 2013. Following the termination, the local firefighters' union brought a grievance against the city on Gannon's behalf, which was arbitrated pursuant to the firefighters' collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator found in favor of the city, and Gannon, on his own behalf, filed a motion in Superior Court to vacate the arbitration award. A hearing justice denied Gannon's motion to substitute the union as a plaintiff, granted the city's motion to dismiss Gannon's motion to vacate the arbitration award, and awarded the city reasonable costs and attorneys' fees. The Supreme Court held that Gannon did not have standing to challenge the arbitration decision on his own behalf, and that the hearing justice properly denied Gannon's motion to substitute the union as a plaintiff because the motion would not have related back to the original filing and was therefore not timely. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the orders of the Superior Court denying Gannon's motion to amend, dismissing his motion to vacate the arbitration award, and awarding reasonable costs and attorneys' fees.

CIVIL - wrongful death summary judgment expert report ultimate issue Evid.R. 704 common knowledge of the jury speculative Evid.R. 702 inadmissible political subdivision school district employees exception to statutory immunity malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner.

In this workers' compensation case, Christopher Batey ("Employee") filed a Petition for Benefit Determination after he sustained a back injury while working for Deliver This, Inc. ("Employer"). The trial court determined that Employee was entitled to 275 weeks of permanent partial disability benefits pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242(a)(2). On appeal, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court erred in "defining an employee's burden of proof under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-242(a)(2) and in defining the phrase 'employee's pre-injury occupation' as used in subsection 242(a)(2)(B)" but concluding that the errors were harmless under the circumstances presented. Batey v. Deliver This, Inc., No. 2016-05-0666, 2018 WL 805490, at 7 (Tenn. Workers' Comp. App. Bd. Feb. 6, 2018). Employer and its insurer, Auto-Owners Insurance Company, have appealed. Pursuant to Tennessee Supreme Court Rule 51, section 2, this Court directed that the appeal not be referred to the Special Workers' Compensation Panel. Upon our review, we affirm the judgment of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board and adopt its opinion in its entirety as set forth in the attached Appendix.

Wendy Sterling Weinert, a former City of Sevierville police officer, brought this retaliatory discharge action against her former employer pursuant to the Tennessee Public Protection Act (TPPA), Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-304 (Supp. 2018). She alleged that she was discharged solely because of her whistleblowing activities of reporting an alleged incident of excessive force and alleged sexual harassment by other officers. The trial court granted summary judgment, holding that plaintiff could not establish that her termination was solely caused because of her whistleblowing activities, as required by the TPPA. We affirm.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - termination reinstatement to prior position as a police officer R.C. 119.12(M) R.C. 2506.04 abuse of discretion standard.

The trial court did not err by granting summary judgment to Appellee on Appellant's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, as expressed in sections 106.1 and 307.1 of the Ohio Building Code. Neither section expresses a clear public policy prohibiting retaliatory employment action. Judgment affirmed.