Adams v. Enon
2012 Ohio 6178
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Adams, a police officer for the Village of Enon, suffered an on-the-job injury with workers’ compensation benefits.
- Adon was terminated from employment effective November 9, 2011.
- On December 2, 2011, Adams filed a complaint alleging termination violated R.C. 4123.90 (retaliation for workers’ compensation claims).
- Adams claimed notice of the violation was provided within 90 days by service of the complaint; Enon denied having received separate written notice.
- Enon moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) or, in the alternative, for summary judgment on the 4123.90 claim; Adams sought to amend to add age and disability discrimination claims under R.C. 4112.02.
- The trial court dismissed the action on May 24, 2012, for lack of written notice under R.C. 4123.90; it then remanded to address Adams’s Civ.R. 15(A) motion to amend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice compliance is jurisdictional | Adams contends notice within 90 days is satisfied by the complaint. | Enon argues separate, pre-filing notice is required for jurisdiction. | Yes, notice must be separate and timely prior to filing (jurisdictional) in the majority view. |
| Whether Adams adequately complied with notice by filing within 90 days | Adams argues the complaint itself provided notice within 90 days. | Enon argues no separate pre-filing notice was received. | No; separate written notice prior to filing is required, so lack of notice deprives jurisdiction. |
| Whether the trial court erred in treating Adams’s motion to amend as moot | Amendment sought to add age and disability discrimination claims; controversy remained. | Dismissal mooted the motion; issues independent of 4123.90 could be addressed on remand. | Third assignment sustained; remand for consideration of Civ.R. 15(A) motion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Gertenslager Co., 63 Ohio App.3d 827 (9th Dist. 1989) (jurisdictional effect of failure to provide notice under 4123.90)
- Miller v. Premier Industrial Corp., 136 Ohio App.3d 662 (8th Dist. 2000) (notice requirement must be satisfied before instituting suit)
- Bailey v. Republic Engineered Steels, Inc., 91 Ohio St.3d 38 (2001) (liberal construction of worker retaliation statutes; notice rules)
- Pratts v. Hurley, 2004-Ohio-1980 (Supreme Court of Ohio) (jurisdictional concept and notice prerequisites; clarifies jurisdictional analysis)
- Gonzalez v. Thaler, 132 S. Ct. 641 (2012) (federal notice/jurisdiction distinctions clarify non-jurisdictional vs jurisdictional rules)