Copley v. Westfield Group
2011 Ohio 4708
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Copley sued Westfield Group for intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel, and unlawful termination based on age discrimination.
- Westfield Group argued it is a trade name and that Ohio Farmers Insurance Co. was the proper defendant; Copley amended to name Ohio Farmers as defendant.
- The trial court converted the motion to dismiss into summary judgment and granted Westfield Group’s motion, recognizing the amended complaint.
- Ohio Farmers presented employee handbook, driving policy, and parole/supervision conditions showing grounds for termination related to felony conviction, reckless homicide, and non-qualification as an ‘Acceptable Driver.’
- Copley, who was an at-will employee, had a 2008 South Carolina conviction for reckless homicide and a 2006 indictment; he served part of a probation term in Ohio.
- The court found no genuine issues of material fact on implied contract and promissory estoppel because Copley did not meet the reciprocal burden and his affidavit did not raise triable issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied contract viability | Copley argues implied contract existed due to assurances of job security. | Ohio Farmers contends at-will status and no implied contract given driving and disciplinary policies. | No implied contract; summary judgment for Ohio Farmers. |
| Promissory estoppel viability | Copley relies on promises of continued employment. | Employer did not make clear, unambiguous promises regarding continued employment. | No promissory estoppel; summary judgment for Ohio Farmers. |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress | Termination without warning and distress from job loss constitute extreme conduct. | Termination for policy violations was within policy and not extreme or outrageous. | Not extreme or outrageous; no IKED; summary judgment for Ohio Farmers. |
| Age discrimination prima facie | Copley is within protected class and was replaced by a younger employee. | Copley was unqualified due to inability to meet ‘Acceptable Driver’ standard after conviction. | Prima facie not shown; summary judgment for Ohio Farmers. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo review standard for summary judgment)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (burden-shifting in Civ.R. 56 summary judgment)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1996) (reciprocal burden of showing genuine issues of fact)
- Craddock v. Flood Co., 9th Dist. No. 23882, 2008-Ohio-112 (9th Dist. 2008) (elements for implied contract and promissory estoppel)
- Current Source, Inc. v. Elyria City School Dist., 157 Ohio App.3d 765 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (elements for promissory estoppel)
- Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas, 59 Ohio St.3d 108 (Ohio 1991) (essential representations leading to continued employment)
- Shetterly v. WHR Health Sys., 9th Dist. No. 08CA0026-M, 2009-Ohio-673 (9th Dist. 2009) (extreme and outrageous conduct standard for IIED)