Hetmanski v. Doe
2017 Ohio 7220
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Jill Hetmanski, a hospital social worker at Trumbull Memorial Hospital (TMH), facilitated placement of a newborn for adoption without involving an agency; TMH policy required agency involvement for "Safe Haven" adoptions.
- CSB executive Timothy Schaffner (appellee) learned of the placement, expressed concerns to TMH by email about potential legal/regulatory violations, and said CSB staff had spoken with the birth mother.
- TMH placed Hetmanski on administrative leave, investigated, concluded she did not follow hospital policy, and terminated her employment on July 22, 2015.
- Hetmanski sued Schaffner for tortious interference with an employment relationship and §1983 civil-rights claims; federal claims were dismissed and the state-law claim was remanded; Schaffner moved for summary judgment on the state claim.
- The trial court granted Schaffner summary judgment, finding Hetmanski failed to show evidence of malice or that Schaffner proximately caused her termination; Hetmanski appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hetmanski proved tortious interference with employment | Hetmanski: Schaffner made false accusations and pressured TMH, inducing termination | Schaffner: He merely reported concerns and lacked malice; not responsible for termination | No — Hetmanski failed to meet elements of claim |
| Whether Schaffner acted with malice | Hetmanski: Email and CSB contact show malicious intent and threats to "deal with" TMH | Schaffner: Email relayed concerns based on staff information; no threats; not malicious | No — record lacks evidence of hatred, ill will, or extreme recklessness |
| Whether Schaffner's conduct proximately caused termination | Hetmanski: TMH acted immediately after CSB contact; Schaffner’s call set investigation in motion | Schaffner: TMH independently investigated; other administrators were concerned; termination based on hospital’s own findings | No — Hetmanski did not show Schaffner’s contact was the proximate cause |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Hetmanski: Disputed facts exist (affidavits, notes) precluding summary judgment | Schaffner: Identified record evidence negating essential elements; Hetmanski failed to raise genuine factual disputes | Yes — summary judgment affirmed; Hetmanski failed to show triable issues |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard for de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (Ohio 1977) (elements and standards for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Mitseff v. Wheeler, 38 Ohio St.3d 112 (Ohio 1988) (moving party’s burden to identify record showing absence of genuine issue)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (reciprocal burden of nonmoving party to set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Preston v. Murty, 32 Ohio St.3d 334 (Ohio 1987) (definitions of malice for tortious-interference claims)
- Columbus Fin., Inc. v. Howard, 42 Ohio St.2d 178 (Ohio 1975) (malice may be inferred from conduct and circumstances)
- Strother v. Hutchinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 282 (Ohio 1981) (discussion of proximate cause where intervening acts occur)
- Clinger v. Duncan, 166 Ohio St. 216 (Ohio 1957) (proximate cause principles when acts set in motion sequence leading to injury)
- Garbe v. Halloran, 150 Ohio St. 476 (Ohio 1948) (act need not be sole cause to be proximate cause)
- Anderson v. Minter, 32 Ohio St.2d 207 (Ohio 1972) (recognition of tortious interference with employment by outsiders)