Kanu v. Univ. of Cincinnati
2018 Ohio 4969
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Plaintiff Bryan Kanu, pro se, filed a lengthy complaint in the Court of Claims against the University of Cincinnati (UC) alleging harassment, negligence in supervision/hiring, interference with co-op employment at Siemens, failure to protect from a hostile work environment, violation of UC Code of Conduct, and bad career advice.
- The trial court dismissed other defendants as not state entities; UC moved to dismiss Kanu’s claims under Civ.R. 8 and 12(B)(6).
- Kanu filed a three‑page amended complaint; UC moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
- The trial court found the amended complaint contained conclusory legal allegations without sufficient factual matter to state viable claims (including breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and employment discrimination) and granted dismissal.
- Kanu appealed, arguing incorrect dismissal standards were applied, pro se status required leniency, errors in defining emotional‑distress claims, and alleged misrepresentations by UC (invoking Civ.R. 60(B)(3)).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court applied the correct standard on a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion | Kanu: court applied too demanding a federal standard and failed to apply pro se leniency | UC: Ohio procedural standards apply; complaint fails to plead sufficient facts | Court: applied Ohio Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standard correctly; pro se status does not excuse pleading requirements |
| Whether alleged harassment supports intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) | Kanu: UC’s "malicious harassment" caused severe emotional harm | UC: allegations are conclusory and not extreme/outrageous | Court: allegations insufficient for IIED; not extreme or outrageous conduct |
| Whether negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED) was stated | Kanu: emotional harm from UC’s conduct | UC: no physical injury, peril, or contemporaneous danger alleged | Court: NIED fails as plaintiff did not allege physical injury or fear of physical harm |
| Whether UC’s Code of Conduct claims state a breach of contract | Kanu: UC employees violated Code of Conduct, creating a contractual duty | UC: complaint lacks factual allegations showing breach or damages | Court: complaint contains only legal conclusions; breach‑of‑contract claim dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (discussion of federal notice‑pleading standard referenced by plaintiff)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (pro se complaints held to less stringent standards)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (standard: dismiss when plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling recovery)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (pleading must be construed in plaintiff’s favor; factual allegations presumed true)
- Yeager v. Local Union 20, Teamsters, 6 Ohio St.3d 369 (elements and outrageousness standard for IIED)
- Paugh v. Hanks, 6 Ohio St.3d 72 (NIED requires witnessing/experiencing a dangerous accident or fear of physical consequences)