Fullum v. Columbiana Cty. Coroner
2014 Ohio 5512
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Fullum served as Coroner's Investigator (2007–2012) and filed suit in 2011 against Columbiana County Coroner and Dr. Graham for wage/hour, retaliation, hostile environment, constructive discharge, and IIED.
- Amended complaint identified Columbiana County Coroner as a political subdivision and Graham as the Coroner; defendants admitted the Coroner is a political subdivision.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment arguing Dr. Graham was immune as an employee of a political subdivision; they did not argue the Coroner office itself was immune.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in 2012, holding the Coroner was a person in official capacity and Dr. Graham immune; the court did not reach substantive merits.
- On review, the Seventh District held the Coroner is a political subdivision and immune defenses apply under 2744.09(B)/(C); it remanded for merits while affirming immunity as to Dr. Graham individually.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Columbiana County Coroner a political subdivision? | Fullum argues the Amended Complaint defines the Coroner as a political subdivision, which defendants admitted. | Graham/Columbiana County Coroner maintain the entity sued is an individual in official capacity, not the subdivision. | Coroner is a political subdivision. |
| Are the Coroner and/or Graham immune from suit under RC 2744? | Fullum argues immunity does not bar his employment-relationship-based claims under RC 2744.09(B)/(C). | Defendants contend Graham (individual) is immune as a political-subdivision employee under RC 2744.03(A)(6). | Columbiana County Coroner is not immune; Graham individually is immune, but court remands for analysis of merits. |
| Did the trial court err by sua sponte construing Columbiana County Coroner as Dr. Graham in official capacity? | Fullum contends the court should not redefine the pleadings sua sponte given admissions in complaints and answers. | Defendants did not raise the issue, but the court may consider immunity theories. | Merits of this sua sponte ruling warranted reversal; error to treat Coroner as Graham sua sponte. |
| Was the supplemental recusal argument reviewable on appeal? | Fullum asserts recusal was required because similar cases before the same judge recused. | Recusal rulings are non-reviewable by appellate courts; waiver/git considerations apply. | Supplemental recusal issue is meritless; appellate jurisdiction to review recusal is lacking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lambert v. Clancy, 125 Ohio St.3d 231 (2010-Ohio-1483) (defines political subdivision immunity extension to subdivisions' departments and offices)
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 131 Ohio St.3d 418 (2012-Ohio-570) (employee's intentional tort against political subdivision may arise from employment relationship)
- Gerrick v. Gorsuch, 172 Ohio St.417 (1961) (pleading admissions bind parties to admitted facts)
- Winkle v. Zettler Funeral Homes, Inc., 182 Ohio App.3d 195 (2009-Ohio-1724) (court treats county coroner as a political subdivision)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (burden on movant to identify basis for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Byrd v. Smith, 110 Ohio St.3d 24 (2006-Ohio-3455) (summary judgment burden and standard clarified)
- Ohio Govt. Risk Mgt. Plan v. Harrison, 115 Ohio St.3d 241 (2007-Ohio-4948) (summarizes standard for governmental immunity analysis)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (arbitration-like standard parallels summary judgment standard)
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 131 Ohio St.3d 418 (2012-Ohio-570) (explains when employee's intent tort against subdivision arises from employment relationship)