Wrongful Termination Cases

Mandamus—Public employees—State Employment Relations Board did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed appellant's unfair-labor-practice charges as untimely—Court of appeals' denial of writ affirmed.

An employer of an independent contractor generally is not liable for the negligence of the independent contractor. North Dakota law recognizes an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in construction contracts. A contracting party cannot escape its liability on the contract by merely assigning its duties and rights under the contract to a third party. The remedy for fraud is rescission of the contract and requires returning the parties back to their original positions. Deceit is not an action dependent on a contract it is a tort cause of action, and allows recovery of damages upon proof of an affirmative misrepresentation or suppression of material facts. When a party requests leave to amend without requesting additional discovery and a summary judgment motion has been docketed, the proposed amendment must be both theoretically viable and solidly grounded in the record. The measure of damages for breach of contract is the amount which will compensate the injured person for the loss which fulfillment of the contract would have prevented or the breach of the contract now requires.

NEGLIGENCE – NEW TRIAL – R.C. 2307.23 – EMPTY-CHAIR DEFENSE: In a wrongful-death action brought by the surviving spouse of a utility worker who died when a rotted utility pole collapsed on him, the trial court did not err in denying the pole inspection company's motion for judgment as a matter of law based upon assumption of the risk: The inspection company cannot invoke the inherently-dangerous-activity exception under Eicher v. U.S. Steel Corp., 32 Ohio St.3d 248, 512 N.E.2d 1165 (1987), because the company did not own or control the premises where the utility worker was injured, the utility worker was not an independent contractor, and the underground rot on a utility pole is not the kind of danger inherent in utility work, such that it cannot be eliminated. The trial court erred in prohibiting defendant pole inspection company from arguing the empty-chair defense with respect to the deceased's employer, and the trial court erred in denying the company's requests to include the employer on the jury interrogatories and verdict form: The plain language of R.C. 2307.23 allows a jury to apportion fault to an employer, even if that employer is immune from suit under the workers' compensation statutes, and the trial court's error is not harmless where reasonable minds could differ as to whether the deceased employer's actions proximately caused the employee's death.

respondeat superior, employee versus independent contractor status, right to control

In this wrongful dismissal case, Sonya Brooks ("Brooks") sued her former employer Roane County and county officials Ron Woody and Gloria Wright ("Defendants"). In a March 9, 2017 order, the Circuit Court for Roane County ("the Trial Court") dismissed Brooks' lawsuit against Defendants with prejudice. The Trial Court reserved taxation of costs for a later date. Brooks filed a notice of appeal on January 10, 2018. Defendants argue that Brooks' appeal was filed untimely. Brooks contends that the March 9, 2017 order was not final and appealable because it reserved the issue of costs. We hold that, in keeping with longstanding Tennessee case law, taxation of costs is incidental and not a factor in determining whether a judgment is final. As Brooks' notice of appeal was not filed timely, we are constrained to dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Administrative Procedure Termination Just Cause Due Process Findings of Fact Conclusions of Law Attorney's Fees Back Pay

The trial court erred in granting Appellees' complaint seeking to enjoin the OHSAA's enforcement of its determination of ineligibility to participate in interscholastic athletics.

We granted this Rule 9 interlocutory appeal in this healthcare liabilty action to consider whether termination of representation by plaintiff's prior legal counsel a few weeks before the expiration of the statute of limitations in this healthcare liability action constitutes sufficient extraordinary cause to excuse (1) plaintiff's failure to wait at least sixty days to file the complaint after providing pre-suit notice as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-121 and, (2) plaintiff's failure to file a Certificate of Good Faith with the complaint as required by Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-122. We find and hold that the Trial Court did not err in finding and holding that termination of representation by plaintiff's prior legal counsel a few weeks before the expiration of the applicable statute of limitations does constitute the type of extraordinary cause sufficient to excuse plaintiff's failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-26-121 and 29-26-122. We, therefore, affirm the Trial Court's orders denying the motions to dismiss.

This interlocutory appeal involves a complaint for damages under the Public Employee Political Freedom Act. The chancery court transferred the case to circuit court after determining that only unliquidated damages were "available" under the statute. We conclude that the complaint failed to allege any liquidated damages. As such, the chancery court correctly determined that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this case. The trial court's decision to transfer this case to circuit court is therefore affirmed.

This is an appeal of the termination of a tenured teacher's employment pursuant to the Tenure Act, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 49-5-501 to – 515. The Director of Schools of the Franklin Special School District filed Charges for Dismissal of the tenured teacher on the grounds of unprofessional conduct, incompetence, inefficiency, insubordination, and neglect of duty. The charging document alleged multiple incidents of unprofessional conduct based on a lack of adherence to required procedures, particularly in the area of special education laws and procedures. It further alleged that the teacher was placed on a Corrective Action Plan for the 2014-2015 school year, during which the teacher was found to be in violation of the plan on multiple occasions. Moreover, at the end of the 2014-2015 school year, the teacher was suspended for three days without pay as a result of an incident that occurred on May 11, 2015, during which the teacher improperly restrained a special education student, which violated the student's individualized education plan. The charging document also identified, inter alia, an incident that occurred on October 28, 2015, when the teacher got into a physical altercation with a special education student who refused to return the teacher's day planner and which resulted in the two falling to the floor. Following an evidentiary hearing, the Impartial Hearing Officer recommended dismissal on the grounds of unprofessional conduct. When the school board voted to sustain the Hearing Officer's decision, the teacher sought review in chancery court. The chancery court affirmed the teacher's dismissal based on the grounds of unprofessional conduct and incompetence. This appeal followed. Because the Hearing Officer did not find that the ground of incompetence had been proven, and that decision was not appealed, the ground of incompetence was not before the court. Therefore, it may not be considered as a ground for dismissal. However, we affirm the decision to dismiss the

Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction of age discrimination claim against school board where employee elected to file OCRC charge tortious violation of rights not recognized claim under Ohio law employee failed to submit proper evidence to support disability discrimination claim employee failed to make prima facie case of retaliation conduct supporting IIED claim not sufficiently extreme and outrageous no abuse of discretion in affirming termination under R.C. 3319.16.

Disability discrimination perceived prima facie transitory and minor. A plaintiff claiming disability discrimination cannot make out a prima facie case of being perceived as disabled if the plaintiff's injuries are transitory and minor — defined under federal law as an impairment with an actual or expected duration of six months or less. Although plaintiff-employee had been placed on disability leave after breaking bones in both hands, her injuries healed and she returned to work in six weeks. The court did not err by directing a verdict in favor the defendant-employer because the plaintiff's injuries were thus transitory and minor, excluding her from a "perceived as" disabled discrimination claim.

Because R.C. 119.12(N) expressly limits an agency's right to appeal an adverse ruling of the common pleas court to questions of law relating to the constitutionality, construction, or interpretation of statutes and rules of the agency, the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction of an appeal by Ohio Veterans Home from a decision of the common pleas court affirming SPBR's determination that appellee's position with OVH placed him in the classified civil service. The question presented to the common pleas court was the correctness of the judgment in light of the facts and not a question of law relating to the constitutionality, construction, or interpretation of statutes and rules of the agency. Appeal dismissed.

North Carolina Human Resources Act N.C. Gen. Stat. ? 126-35(a) Just cause to dismiss career State employee Specificity of allegations in employee dismissal letter