Hambuechen v. 221 Market N., Inc.
2017 Ohio 8998
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Hambuechen filed an Ohio Civil Rights Commission (OCRC) charge alleging Napoli’s (221 Market N., Inc.) terminated her for becoming pregnant; OCRC found probable cause and issued a complaint.
- An ALJ found unlawful sex discrimination, recommended reinstatement and back pay; the Commission adopted the ALJ’s report in a final order.
- Napoli petitioned for judicial review; procedural disputes over service led to dismissal, reversal on appeal, and remand; the trial court later enforced the Commission order.
- After multiple appeals, the Commission and Hambuechen moved for a show-cause order alleging Napoli failed to comply with the Commission’s order and had listed the business for sale; the motion and show-cause order were served on Napoli’s counsel but not on Napoli itself.
- A show-cause hearing was scheduled; neither Napoli nor its counsel appeared. The trial court entered an order requiring reinstatement and directed payment (or judgment) of $206,648.00.
- Napoli appealed, arguing the court erred because the contempt (show-cause) proceedings lacked service on the alleged contemnor (Napoli) and thus violated due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initial service of an indirect civil contempt (show-cause) motion on the party's attorney, rather than the party, is sufficient | OCRC/Hambuechen served counsel; implied sufficiency or practicality of serving counsel | Napoli: due process violated because it as alleged contemnor never received personal service or actual notice | Court held initial service on counsel was insufficient for an indirect civil contempt; service must be made on the alleged contemnor; reversed and remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Flinn, 7 Ohio App.3d 294 (9th Dist. 1982) (definition of contempt as disregard for judicial authority)
- Windham Bank v. Tomaszczyk, 27 Ohio St.2d 55 (Ohio 1971) (contempt obstructs court performance; foundational definition)
- In re Lands, 146 Ohio St. 589 (Ohio 1946) (indirect contempt defined as contempt outside the court’s presence)
- In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1948) (due process protections required in contempt proceedings)
- Purola, 73 Ohio App.3d 306 (3rd Dist. 1991) (classification of contempt and civil-contempt purge principle)
- Hansen v. Hansen, 132 Ohio App.3d 795 (Ohio App. 1999) (service on attorney insufficient in contempt context where alleged contemnor faces punishment)