Beckloff v. Amcor Rigid Plastics USA, L.L.C.
2017 Ohio 4467
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Beckloff (age 61) was hired by Amcor as a production supervisor in Feb 2012 and reported to Robinson; Hall and Robinson participated in hiring.
- From 2013–2015 Beckloff received multiple performance problems: corrective action notices, two performance-improvement plans (PIPs), and poor mid‑year/annual evaluations (2.0/5.0 in 2015).
- Shortly after the second PIP (Aug 31, 2015) Beckloff approved running defective product twice, failed to discipline a safety violation, and failed to report/investigate a press fire; Amcor terminated him on Sept 11, 2015.
- Beckloff sued for age discrimination (R.C. 4112.02), wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), and negligent hiring/retention/supervision; he sought punitive damages.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Amcor on all claims (Sept 16, 2016); Beckloff appealed. The Sixth District affirmed, finding no genuine issue of material fact on any claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination (prima facie and pretext) | Beckloff contends termination was age‑motivated; cites an "ageist" comment, hires of younger supervisors, and alleged denial of full PIP time | Amcor points to documented poor performance, multiple PIPs/corrective notices, and that the decisionmakers lacked age animus; same‑actor inference favors employer | Court: Beckloff established prima facie but failed to show pretext or illegitimate motive; summary judgment for Amcor affirmed |
| Wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (workplace safety) | Beckloff says he reported fear of a hostile supervisor (Aug 17, 2015) and was later terminated in retaliation, implicating R.C. 4101.11/4101.12 policies | Amcor argues Beckloff never put employer on notice that he was invoking governmental/public policy (jeopardy/clarity) and termination was for performance, not retaliation | Court: No evidence Beckloff invoked a governmental policy; claim fails on jeopardy/notice grounds; summary judgment affirmed |
| IIED | Beckloff alleges Robinson’s conduct (including an incident where he feared assault) and termination caused serious emotional distress | Amcor contends conduct was ordinary workplace discipline; no extreme/outrageous acts or severe distress shown | Court: Conduct did not meet the high bar for IIED; summary judgment affirmed |
| Negligent hiring/retention/supervision | Beckloff argues Amcor negligently retained Robinson given alleged hostility and safety concerns | Amcor notes Robinson’s qualifications, lack of other complaints, and absence of plaintiff’s demonstrable injuries from any alleged incompetence | Court: No genuine issue that Robinson was incompetent or that Amcor had constructive notice; claim fails; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (summary judgment Civ.R. 56 standard articulated)
- Montell v. Diversified Clinical Servs., 757 F.3d 497 (6th Cir. 2014) (PIP termination before deadline can create fact question where no intervening performance issues)
- White v. Baxter Healthcare Corp., 533 F.3d 381 (6th Cir. 2008) (discussion of mixed‑motive framework in discrimination claims)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1983) (elements and high bar for IIED)