Luri v. Republic Services, Inc.
953 N.E.2d 859
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Luri was general manager of Ohio Hauling’s Cleveland division; Bowen supervised Luri and reporting to Krall, who was Republic’s employee.
- Bowen allegedly proposed an action plan to terminate three long-tenured employees, including Pascuzzi, Fiser, and Darienzo, which Luri refused due to potential discrimination concerns.
- Luri’s subsequent performance evaluations declined; Bowen issued “improvements directives” and Luri was terminated on April 27, 2007.
- Luri filed a retaliatory-discharge suit under R.C. 4112.02(1) on August 17, 2007; evidence allegedly altered by Bowen during discovery.
- Trial commenced June 24, 2008; jury awarded $3.5 million in compensatory damages and $43,108,599 in punitive damages; court denied motions for remittitur, new trial, and JNOV; punitive-cap issues arose on posttrial motions.
- The appellate court affirmed the verdict but remanded to apply statutory punitive-damage caps; the concurring judge dissented on the punitive-damage cap calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether bifurcation was mandatory under R.C. 2315.21(B)(1). | Luri’s punitive damages claim requires bifurcation. | Discretionary bifurcation allowed; no mandatory imposition. | Court held bifurcation discretionary, not mandatory. |
| Whether R.C. 2315.18 and related tort-reform provisions apply to R.C. 4112 retaliatory-discharge claims. | Tort-reform caps apply to retaliation claims. | Exemption may apply; disagreement about applicability. | R.C. 2315 et seq. applies to retaliatory-discharge actions; error not reversible absent proper request. |
| Whether punitive damages should be capped at twice compensatory damages under R.C. 2315.21(D)(2)(a). | Cap should apply per defendant; multiple entities capped per defendant. | Cap should be calculated per plaintiff per defendant; joint liability complicates. | Trial court erred by not applying cap; remand for cap of two times compensatory damages per defendant. |
| Whether due-process considerations limit the punitive-damages award. | Award was excessive under Gore/State Farm factors. | Conduct outrageous; ratio and pattern justify large award. | Gore factors support substantial punitive damages; remand to set amount within statutory bounds. |
| Whether prejudgment interest was correctly calculated on future damages included in compensatory damages. | Interest should accrue on future damages. | Interests tied to no-separation of damages; invited error. | Error not reversible; invited error; prejudgment interest affirmed as calculated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barnes v. Univ. Hospitals of Cleveland, 119 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 2008) (bifurcation discretionary; damages intertwined with liability questions)
- Havel v. Villa St. Joseph, 126 Ohio St.3d 1530 (Ohio 2011) (unconstitutional aspects of bifurcation statute conflict with Civ.R. 42(B))
- Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 468 (Ohio 2007) (2315.21 caps apply to tort actions; proper application per defendant)
- Faieta v. World Harvest Church, 2008-Ohio-6959 (Ohio 2008) (jury interrogatories and damages forms invited error; lack of separation affects damages caps)
- Srail v. RJF Internatl Corp., 126 Ohio App.3d 689 (Ohio App. 1998) (invited-error principle in damages instructions/interrogatories)
- Geiger v. Pfizer, Inc., 2009 WL 2009 (S.D. Ohio 2009) (statutory action within tort-reform umbrella for 4112 claims)
- BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (U.S. 1996) (established Gore factors for punitive-damage review)
- State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408 (U.S. 2003) (reinforces Gore factors and due-process constraints)