Kienow v. Cincinnati Children's Hosp. Med. Ctr.
2015 Ohio 4396
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- Plaintiff Gloria Kienow worked for Cincinnati Children’s (Nov 2006–July 2011) and was supervised by Mary Anne Morris.
- Kienow alleges Morris placed false, negative information in her personnel file (discovered by Apr 2010) and the hospital failed to remove it despite HR assurances.
- Kienow resigned July 19, 2011 and later sought other jobs; she received then lost a verbal offer from Dayton Children’s in Dec 2011/Jan 2012.
- In late 2013 Kienow learned Morris allegedly told the Dayton hiring manager false, negative things about her in Jan 2012, causing the rescission.
- Kienow sued (June 23, 2014) for defamation, negligent supervision, and tortious interference; defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) as time-barred and on other grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defamation claim is time-barred | Kienow contends some publications were actionable and discovery of the Dayton statement was in late 2013 | Defendants: publications occurred before and outside one-year limitations | Defamation claim barred by one-year statute; accrual on publication (no discovery rule) |
| Whether negligent supervision claim is time-barred | Kienow points to hospital’s failure to act after her complaints (around Apr 2010) | Defendants: negligent-supervision accrual prior to suit and outside four-year limit | Negligent-supervision claim barred by four-year statute |
| Proper statute of limitations for tortious interference | Kienow: claim is tortious interference, so four-year statute applies | Defendants: claim is disguised defamation and subject to one-year limit | Court: tortious-interference pleaded; four-year statute applies because claim targets interference with a prospective business relationship, not merely reputation |
| Whether complaint pleaded facts to overcome statutory privilege for employer references | Kienow: complaint alleges malicious false statements to Dayton; no allegation Dayton requested info, so privilege may not apply | Defendants: statutory privilege shields employer unless plaintiff alleges malicious/bad-faith disclosure | Complaint survived 12(B)(6) as it did not show the privilege applied on its face; the Jan 2012 interference claim was timely and sufficiently pleaded |
Key Cases Cited
- Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 12 Ohio St.3d 179 (discussing courts look to the actual nature of the claim to determine applicable statute of limitations)
- Robb v. Lincoln Publishing (Ohio), Inc., 114 Ohio App.3d 595 (defamation defined as false and malicious publication harming reputation or trade)
- Juhasz v. Quik Shops, Inc., 55 Ohio App.2d 51 (explaining tortious interference as inducing a third party to not enter into or continue a business relationship)