Cruz v. English Nanny & Governess School Inc.
2017 Ohio 4176
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Christina Cruz, a nanny-school graduate, reported suspected child sexual abuse by a prospective employer after consulting School staff; she alleged the School and its placement agency discouraged reporting, then blackballed her from placements.
- Plaintiff Heidi Kaiser, a placement director, was fired after she disclosed defendants’ discouragement of Cruz and continued to support Cruz; she sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
- After motions, the jury found for Cruz on intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) and breach of contract, and for Kaiser on wrongful discharge; punitive damages and attorney fees were awarded.
- The trial court denied defendants’ JNOV and directed-verdict motions, granted remittitur reducing Cruz’s economic damages to zero, capped punitive damages statutorily, and awarded attorney fees less than plaintiffs sought; it also sanctioned plaintiff’s lead attorney, Pattakos, for communicating with the press.
- On appeal, the court affirmed denial of JNOV/directed verdicts on IIED and wrongful discharge, reversed the remittitur and the fee-reduction methodology, and vacated sanctions against Pattakos, remanding for reconsideration of remittitur and fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence on IIED (severity/debilitating element) | Cruz: evidence of panic attacks, worsened depression, expert testimony shows severe, debilitating emotional injury caused/exacerbated by defendants. | Defendants: Cruz’s preexisting conditions and continued work/placement activity show she was not debilitated; insufficient proof of severe, debilitating distress. | Court: Evidence was sufficient to send IIED to jury; denial of directed verdict/JNOV affirmed. |
| Wrongful discharge (public-policy exception) | Kaiser: termination for resisting efforts to deter a mandatory reporter jeopardized public policy favoring reporting child abuse. | Defendants: No jeopardy because Kaiser did not observe or report abuse and statutory remedies protect the policy. | Court: Jeopardy satisfied because no adequate statutory remedy for an employee retaliated against for supporting reporting by a nonmandatory reporter; directed verdict/JNOV denied. |
| Remittitur of Cruz’s economic damages | Cruz: trial court abused discretion by ordering remittitur without applying the required Chester Park criteria or obtaining plaintiff’s consent. | Defendants: economic award excessive; remittitur appropriate. | Court: Remittitur procedure was defective; reversed and remanded for proper consideration and plaintiff’s consent. |
| Attorney-fee award methodology | Plaintiffs: fees should follow lodestar and relevant reasonableness factors, not be reduced primarily because of a contingency agreement. | Defendants: contingency arrangement and other factors justify reduction. | Court: Trial court abused discretion by fixing award essentially at contingent-fee amount, excluding other attorneys’ fees and not fully applying Prof.Cond.R.1.5 factors; remanded to reconsider fees. |
| Sanctions under R.C. 2323.51 for media communications | Pattakos: his communication was public-record and scheduling info; protected by First Amendment and Prof.Cond.R.3.6 exceptions. | Defendants: urging media coverage and supplying information prejudiced proceedings and was frivolous harassment. | Court: Trial court abused discretion imposing R.C.2323.51 sanctions; media communications here fell within protected speech/Rule 3.6(b) categories and disciplinary matters belong to Ohio Supreme Court; sanctions vacated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyle v. Pyle, 11 Ohio App.3d 31 (Eighth Dist. 1983) (elements for IIED claim)
- Phung v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 408 (Ohio 1994) (IIED standard discussion)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (Ohio 1983) (adopting Restatement standard for IIED)
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (Ohio 1983) (defines "serious emotional distress" as severe and debilitating)
- Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, 96 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2002) (jeopardy element analysis and relation of statutory remedies to common-law wrongful discharge)
- Leininger v. Pioneer Natl. Latex, 115 Ohio St.3d 311 (Ohio 2007) (clarifies when statutory remedies negate need for common-law wrongful-discharge claim)
- Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc., 58 Ohio St.3d 143 (Ohio 1991) (lodestar and fee-reasonableness framework)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S. 1983) (lodestar as starting point for fee awards)