2018 Ohio 2547
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Cooper worked for West Carrollton Parks Dept. from 1980, promoted to Maintenance II in 1998, and retired April 26, 2016; he was a union member entitled to seniority protections.
- In early 2008 Cooper acted as department supervisor after his supervisor retired; he sought a written guarantee preserving his prior title/seniority and requested an employment contract dated January 25, 2008.
- City Manager Townsend told Cooper the City did not enter into employment contracts; Cooper nonetheless performed supervisory duties but did not receive a negotiated supervisor salary and continued receiving either Maintenance II pay plus an 8% supervisory stipend or otherwise lower pay.
- Cooper never pursued the Personnel Rules or union grievance procedures and did not present evidence that the City provisionally appointed him or gave him a provisional exam.
- Cooper filed an initial suit in June 2015 (dismissed without prejudice), refiled December 2016 alleging breach of contract, breach of implied contract, and promissory estoppel; the trial court dismissed promissory estoppel/implied contract as time-barred and later granted summary judgment on the contract claim for indefiniteness and lack of mutual assent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence/enforceability of an oral employment contract | Cooper: oral offer and acceptance; performance as supervisor shows mutual assent | City: no meeting of minds; no written contract; terms (especially salary) indefinite | Court: No enforceable contract—terms (salary) indefinite; no mutual assent to material terms |
| Whether statutory grievance/Personnel Rule provisions created enforceable contractual rights | Cooper: Personnel Rule 6.10 and procedures support his claim | City: Cooper was not a provisional appointee; no evidence he complied with grievance/process requirements | Court: No evidence of compliance or of provisional appointment; not material to create an enforceable contract |
| Application of the six-year statute of limitations (R.C. 2305.07) to implied contract/promissory estoppel claims | Cooper: injury not realized until 2012–2013 or continuing violation tolls limitations | City: breach occurred in early 2008; limitations expired before filing | Court: Claims accrued in early 2008; filing in 2015 was untimely; continuing-violation doctrine not applicable to this contract claim |
| Whether a continuing-accrual or continuing-violation theory tolls limitations for repeated pay-period damages | Cooper: each unpaid pay period/continuing injury resets accrual | City: damages arose from a single wrongful act (failure to set agreed salary) | Court: No Ohio authority extends continuing-violation to contract claims here; damages stemmed from a single event, so limitations bar applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Rulli v. Fan Co., 79 Ohio St.3d 374, 683 N.E.2d 337 (1997) (contracts must have sufficiently definite terms for enforcement)
- Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St.3d 1, 770 N.E.2d 58 (2002) (elements of contract and requirement of mutual assent)
- Kincaid v. Erie Ins. Co., 128 Ohio St.3d 322, 944 N.E.2d 207 (2010) (cause of action for breach accrues when breach causes actual damages)
- Nilavar v. Osborn, 127 Ohio App.3d 1, 711 N.E.2d 726 (2d Dist. 1998) (insufficient terms defeat remedy determination)
- Aryeh v. Canon Business Sols., Inc., 55 Cal.4th 1185, 151 Cal.Rptr.3d 827, 292 P.3d 871 (2013) (discusses continuous-accrual theory treating periodic billing breaches as separate accruals)