Wrongful Termination Cases

Appeal from decision confirming an arbitrator's award and denying a motion to vacate the award. Trial court did not err in finding the grievance was arbitrable and upholding arbitrator's decision to reduce discipline and reinstate the grievants.

The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion on R.C. 3319.16 appellate review when it affirmed the board of education's order terminating teacher's employment. Judgment of the common pleas court affirmed.

Cummings was a deputy sheriff in Arapahoe County. The Sheriff terminated Cummings' employment, asserting that he violated the Sheriff's employee manual (the Manual) and was dishonest during the investigation of the original charges against him. Cummings exhausted his remedies within the Sheriff's department and sued for (1) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and (2) breach of an implied contract of employment, based on the policies in the Manual. The Sheriff moved to dismiss the wrongful termination claim based on governmental immunity, and the district court dismissed the claim with prejudice. The district court denied the Sheriff's motion to dismiss the implied contract claim, and the Sheriff moved for summary judgment. The district court denied the motion for summary judgment, holding that there was an implied contract of employment and disputed issues of material fact existed. The Sheriff brought an interlocutory appeal under C.A.R. 42 challenging the denial of summary judgment. On appeal, the Sheriff contended that the trial court erred in denying his motion for summary judgment. He argued that the at-will employment concept in CRS § 30-10-506 requires the court to hold that all policies promulgated by a sheriff relating to termination of deputy sheriffs' employment are only precatory, and to conclude otherwise would mean that the sheriff lacks the power to terminate at-will employees. CRS § 30-10-506 requires a sheriff to promulgate written employment policies, and the sheriff must give deputies the rights of notice and opportunity to be heard. A sheriff's other employment policies may be, but are not required to be, binding. If the sheriff elects to confer binding employment rights on his deputies, those rights are enforceable according to their terms. The Sheriff next argued that even if CRS § 30-10-506 allows sheriffs to promulgate binding personnel policies, the disclaimers in the Manual and the yearly disclaimers that Cummings signed preclu

contested case hearing, Whistleblower Act

Dismissal of complaint motion for judgment on pleadings common-law tort for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy Greeley claim unlicensed practice of nursing R.C. 4723.03 reporting Ohio Board of Nursing retaliatory discharge R.C. 4723.341 R.C. 4113.52 jeopardy adequate statutory remedy. Trial court did not err in dismissing employee's complaint for failure to state a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where jeopardy element of claim was not satisfied. Adequate statutory remedy existed under R.C. 4723.33 and 4723.341 — incorporating the rights and duties granted "whistleblowing" employees under R.C. 4113.52 — that addresses society's interest in protecting employees who report violations of R.C. Chapter 4723. Employee's failure to comply with the requirements for statutory relief for wrongful discharge did not render statutory remedy inadequate.

Plaintiff filed a wrongful termination case on the basis of racial discrimination as well as intentional infliction of emotional distress and retaliation against The Ohio State University. Plaintiff failed to file within the two year statute of limitation and the longer federal time period in this case is not applicable. Judgment affirmed.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE – COLLECTIVE-BARGAINING AGREEMENT – UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE – WRONGFUL DISCHARGE – DISCRIMINATION – JURISDICTION: The State Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over a wrongful-discharge claim brought against a public employer by an employee subject to a collective-bargaining agreement. Pursuant to R.C. 4117.11(B)(6), the State Employment Relations Board has exclusive jurisdiction over claim against a union for a breach of the duty to fairly represent a public employee. R.C. Chapter 4117 does not provide the exclusive remedy for a claim of disparate-treatment discrimination, which does not arise from or depend on a collective-bargaining agreement.

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-35 discharge without just cause authority to accept a resignation compliance with grievance process attorneys' fees appointing authority

CIVIL - summary judgment Civ.R. 56(C) employment discrimination R.C. 4112.02(A) disparate treatment retaliation R.C. 4112.02(I) nondiscriminatory and pretextual reasons for termination

No error disposing case because no issue of material fact existed to challenge whether employment was governed by CBA no jurisdiction.