Court Rulings

Civ.R. 52 motion for findings of fact and conclusions of law following bench trial.

Workers' Compensation, law of the case doctrine, disability determination

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.

CIVIL - disability discrimination retaliatory discharge collateral estoppel res judicata grievance process used collective bargaining agreement statutory claims not barred separate not actually or necessarily litigated separate remedies are not jointly exhaustive summary judgment reasonable and nondiscriminatory basis for termination no evidence of pretext no genuine issue of material fact.

The trial court correctly determined that appellant failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a common-law marriage existed prior to the statutory abolishment of common-law marriage in 1991. The admission of evidence and the trial court's determinations regarding the control of a trial court's docket will not be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Legal arguments must be supported by relevant case law. App.R. 16. Regularity of the proceedings is presumed where a transcript has not been filed. Common-law marriage, R.C. 3105.12, App.R. 16, content of appellate briefs, regularity of proceedings.

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.

Workers compensation: trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law were sufficient for appellate court to conduct review trial court did not err in admitting testimony competent and credible evidence supports judgment of the trial court.

MALPRACTICE - legal where appellant discharged her attorney by letter in July 2015 and a cognizable event occurred in November 2015 when she signed a grievance against her attorney with Disciplinary Counsel, appellant's cause of action accrued and the statute of limitations began to run in November 2015 and the statute of limitations expired in November 2016 since appellant did not file her complaint until January 2017, the trial couirt did not err in finding that appellant's claim was time-barred and in granting Hurley's motion for summary judgment.

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

summary judgment, Civ.R. 56, App.R. 16(A)(7), disability discrimination, R.C. 4112.02, workers' compensation, retaliation, R.C. 4123.90

Unemployment Compensation Review Commission's denial of appellant's application for unemployment benefits was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, where the record revealed that appellant quit his employment without affording the employer an opportunity to address his safety concerns, and therefore without just cause.

unemployment compensation benefits, just cause, manifest weight of the evidence, R.C. 4141.282(H)

The defendant-union, CCRI Educational Support Professional Association/NEARI, appealed to the Supreme Court after a justice of the Superior Court vacated an arbitration award that had reinstated the grievant, Michael Crenshaw, to his position as a Campus Police Officer for the plaintiff, the Community College of Rhode Island. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the arbitrator exceeded his powers by deciding a grievance that was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court concluded that Crenshaw was not eligible to become a permanent police officer because he had neither completed the statutorily required police training academy nor received a waiver from having to do so, and thus the arbitrator lacked the authority to reinstate Crenshaw to a position that he could not legally hold

The trial court did not err by affirming the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission's decision allowing claimant-appellee's application for unemployment compensation. There is some competent, credible evidence supporting the Commission's determination that claimant-appellee worked in covered employment with appellant.

Relator's objection sustained and writ of mandamus granted for TTD workers compensation benefits for woman who was family farm worker after being widowed, based undisputed evidence of her work on family farm. Magistrate's findings of fact adopted and additional findings made by appeals court. Magistrate's findings of law not adopted and appeals court holds decision of the Industrial Commission of Ohio is not based on some evidence, and thus abuse of discretion, reversing and remanding it to Industrial Commission for decision consistent with law.

David Paolo appeals from a grant of a motion for summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, West Davisville Realty Co., LLC, holding Paolo liable on a personal guaranty of a termination of lease agreement between the plaintiff and Alpha Nutrition, Inc. On appeal, Paolo argued that there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff fraudulently induced him to personally guarantee the agreement. Paolo also averred that there was an issue of material fact as to whether the plaintiff provided consideration to Paolo to effectuate a valid contract. The Supreme Court held that Paolo's failure to plead fraud in the inducement against the plaintiff in his answer amounted to a waiver of the affirmative defense, and, therefore, his allegations against the plaintiff raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment were inadequate to oppose summary judgment. Additionally, the Court concluded that there was sufficient consideration for the underlying contract with the corporation such that the personal guaranty was valid. Thus, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court.

Magistrate did not err in concluding medical report was ambiguous as to whether relator was capable of employment and, therefore, could not constitute some evidence in support of order denying PTD application. Writ of mandamus granted ordering commission to vacate order denying PTD application and enter an order adjudicating the PTD application.

Record contained sufficient evidence to support respondent's determination approving relator's application for disability retirement "not in the line of duty."

Employment at-will Defamation

Dissolution, shared parenting plan, separation agreement, R.C. 3105.73, post-decree attorney fees, guardian ad litem fees, children's attorney fees, R.C. Chapter 3119, child support. Interpretation of the separation agreement and shared parenting agreement incorporated into the dissolution of marriage is a matter of contract. Evidence of withdrawal receipts from automated teller machines with handwritten notations indicating the alleged expenditure for which the withdrawal was made is insufficient to demonstrate that the expenses were actually incurred and remitted. The trial court had broad discretion to determine entitlement to post-decree attorney fees in spite of an income disparity. The trial court is given considerable discretion in allocating guardian ad litem fees and the children's attorney fees based on which party caused the need for the services. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating child support and has broad discretion in computing child support where the parents' combined income is greater than $150,000, and the credibility of the complaining spouse may be considered by the trial court in reaching a determination.

Trial court erred by granting directed verdict in favor of employer on claim for lumbar radiculitis. Although testimony from claimant's medical expert was equivocal on whether lumbar radiculitis was a pain symptom of another condition or an independent condition, it was not proper to weigh the credibility of various portions of the medical expert's testimony in ruling on a motion for directed verdict. Because portions of the medical expert's testimony constituted some evidence of substantive probative value, reasonable minds could not reach only one conclusion in favor of the employer.

The trial court did not err in affirming the decision of the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission finding that appellant is a successor in interest to Stanley Staffing, Inc. Judgment affirmed.