Cozzuli v. Sandridge Food Corp.
2011 Ohio 4878
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Cozzuli was hired January 23, 2005 as a maintenance mechanic, age 55 at hire.
- He earned a higher wage due to experience; raises were annual and contingent on reviews.
- He received no raise after the October 2006 review and considered leaving; supervisor transfer occurred spring 2008.
- From November 2006 to his 2008 termination, supervisors reported negative performance feedback and attendance issues; welding skills were deficient.
- He failed TIG welding tests in May and June 2008, did not take a welding class, and faced repeated warnings.
- Cozzuli was terminated July 7, 2008 at age 57; he filed suit January 6, 2010 alleging implied contract, promissory estoppel, age discrimination, and IIED; trial court granted summary judgment for Sandridge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether age discrimination claim survives summary judgment | Cozzuli argues age-based termination violates RC 4112.02(A) and creates a prima facie case. | Sandridge asserts a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason and that no pretext is shown. | No genuine issues; summary judgment upheld for Sandridge on age discrimination. |
| Whether implied contract or promissory estoppel claims survive | Cozzuli contends there were assurances of continued employment beyond at-will status. | Sandridge notes no specific long-term contract; statements alleged are optimism, not enforceable promises. | Summary judgment for Sandridge affirmed; no actionable implied contract or promissory estoppel. |
| Whether intentional infliction of emotional distress claim survives | Termination itself is claimed to be outrageous conduct. | Termination alone is insufficient to constitute IIED under controlling law. | Summary judgment affirmed; IIED claim is unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio Supreme Court 1996) (discusses Dresher burden on summary judgment and shifting burden)
- Welch v. Norton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2010-Ohio-6131 (Ohio 9th Dist. 2010) (outlines prima facie framework for age discrimination and pretext analysis)
- Craddock v. Flood Co., 2008-Ohio-112 (9th Dist. 2008) (requires specific representations for implied contract/promissory estoppel)
- Shetterly v. WHR Health Sys., 2009-Ohio-673 (9th Dist. 2009) (discusses required elements for implied contract/promissory estoppel)
- St. Mary’s Honor Ctr. v. Hicks, 509 U.S. 502 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (pretext framework in discrimination cases)
- Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio Supreme Court 1994) (elements of IIED, including intent and outrageous conduct)