Fischer v. Kent State Univ.
41 N.E.3d 840
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Norman Fischer was a tenured Kent State philosophy professor (1974–2010) who faced progressive discipline and sanctions beginning in 2007; he retired in August 2010.
- Fischer and Kent State were governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) with the AAUP-KSU; a prior settlement between the parties existed (Oct. 17, 1996).
- After an April 30, 2010 Faculty Advisory Committee (FAC) meeting and subsequent correspondence (May 4, 2010; July 19, 2010), Kent State notified Fischer it intended to proceed with sanctions under the CBA.
- Fischer filed multiple claims in the Court of Claims (amended complaint Jan. 23, 2012) alleging defamation, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, First Amendment violations, and violations of R.C. 149 and R.C. 1347.10.
- The Court of Claims granted Kent State summary judgment, dismissing or finding no jurisdiction over the various claims; Fischer appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| R.C. 1347.10 (wrongful disclosure of personal info) | Kent State attorneys disclosed false employment information in EEOC filings | EEOC filings are public records under R.C. 149.43 and not prohibited by R.C. 1347.10 | Summary judgment for Kent State — EEOC brief is a public record; no violation shown |
| Breach of contract (and related claims: IIED, retaliation) | Kent State breached the 1996 settlement and CBA; sanctions and scheduling were retaliatory and intended to cause distress | Claims relate to terms/conditions of employment and are governed by the CBA and R.C. Chapter 4117; jurisdiction lies elsewhere | Claims preempted by R.C. 4117 and CBA; Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction; summary judgment/dismissal affirmed |
| Defamation | Letters (May 4, 2010; July 19, 2010) and statements in EEOC/deposition materials were false and defamatory | Many alleged statements are time-barred; others are privileged or immune (qualified privilege for provost letter; absolute immunity for witnesses/attorneys) | Most defamation claims barred by statute of limitations, qualified privilege, or immunity; summary judgment for Kent State |
| Constitutional claims and R.C. 149 Public Records Act | First Amendment and state constitutional violations; public-records violations during discovery | Constitutional claims require §1983 and cannot be brought against the State in Court of Claims; R.C. 149 remedies lie in mandamus/common pleas/courts of appeals/supreme court | Court of Claims lacks jurisdiction over constitutional and R.C. 149 claims; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 123 Ohio App.3d 158 (4th Dist. 1997) (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Mergenthal v. Star Bank Corp., 122 Ohio App.3d 100 (12th Dist. 1997) (appellate independent review on summary judgment)
- Moore v. Youngstown State Univ., 63 Ohio App.3d 238 (10th Dist. 1989) (jurisdiction for CBA claims lies in common pleas)
- Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447 (1983) (absolute immunity for attorneys/witnesses re: judicial proceedings)
- Jett v. Dallas Indep. School Dist., 491 U.S. 701 (1989) (constitutional claims against state actors must be pursued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983)
- Burkey v. S. Ohio Corr. Facility, 38 Ohio App.3d 170 (10th Dist. 1987) (state is not a person under § 1983 for purposes of Court of Claims jurisdiction)