Employment Law Court Rulings

Tysheka Barnett brought this action solely against her employer, B.F. Nashville, Inc., dba Wendy's of Nashville, alleging that Wendy's general manager, William Rogers, sexually harrassed her during her employment at a Wendy's restaurant. After a four-day bench trial, the court found that plaintiff…

This case involves a request to redeem real property following a tax sale. The trial court entered an order of redemption, divested title out of the tax sale purchaser, and directed the court clerk to refund the tax sale purchaser the money expended to purchase the property, plus other sums. We…

A father appeals the denial of his petition to modify a permanent parenting plan. The juvenile court found no material change in circumstance had occurred sufficient to modify the primary residential parent designation. The court also denied the father's subsequent motion to alter or amend the…

Trial court's determination that money was a loan and not a gift supported by the record.

I concur in the majority's determination that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's judgment (1) finding a material change in circumstances (2) holding that "the best interest of the children [is] that [Mr. Bell] be the Primary Residential Parent" and (3) awarding father 215…

WORKERS' COMPENSATION - summary judgment Civ.R. 56 genuine issue of material fact compensable workplace injury arising out of employment unexplained slip or fall neutral origin direct benefit.

This is a breach of contract action in which the issues hinge on the meaning of several provisions in the agreement. In 1999 and again in 2009, BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, Inc. ("BlueCross") and Individual Healthcare Specialists, Inc. ("IHS") entered into a general agency agreement that…

EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE - INTENTIONAL TORT - R.C. 2745.01 - SUMMARY JUDGMENT: The trial court did not err in granting defendant employer's motion for summary judgment in an intentional-tort case brought by its employee's estate: R.C. 2745.01(C)'s rebuttable presumption did not apply because the…