97 N.E.3d 1116
Oh. Ct. App. 7th Dist. Mahonin...2017Background
- Martina Marzano, a paraprofessional for Struthers City School District, was covered by a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the District and her union (OAPSE Local #261).
- Marzano sued the District, former Superintendent Joseph Nohra, and Principal Dennis Hynes for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), seeking compensatory and punitive damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(1) (lack of subject-matter jurisdiction) and 12(B)(6) (failure to state a claim), attaching the CBA and an affidavit showing Marzano did not file a grievance.
- The magistrate converted the motion to one for summary judgment because materials outside the pleadings were submitted; Marzano did not present opposing evidence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding R.C. 4117.10(A) makes the CBA grievance procedure Marzano’s exclusive remedy and therefore the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the IIED claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because the CBA preempts Marzano's IIED claim | Marzano: IIED claim is a common-law tort not barred from court; CBA does not strip jurisdiction | Defendants: R.C. 4117.10(A) and the CBA make grievance/arbitration the exclusive remedy for disputes over terms/conditions of employment | Court: Claim is governed by the CBA; grievance procedure is Marzano's exclusive remedy, so the court lacks jurisdiction |
| Whether conversion of the motion to summary judgment was improper | Marzano: conversion was erroneous and prejudicial | Defendants: conversion was proper because defendants submitted evidence outside pleadings | Court: Conversion was proper and not plain error given the submitted materials |
| Whether Marzano stated an IIED claim of "extreme and outrageous" conduct (conditional) | Marzano: allegations describe severe emotional harm from employer misconduct | Defendants: allegations are routine workplace disputes that cannot support IIED as a matter of law | Court: Did not decide on merits because jurisdictional bar was dispositive; conditional defense not reached |
| Whether Marzano produced evidence to show her claims fall outside the CBA | Marzano: relied on complaint; submitted no evidentiary rebuttal | Defendants: presented CBA and affidavit showing no grievance filed | Court: Marzano offered no evidence to demonstrate her claims fall outside the CBA; summary judgment for defendants affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Parenti v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 66 Ohio App.3d 826 (Ohio Ct. App.) (standard of review and summary judgment burden)
- Wilkerson v. Howell Contractors, 163 Ohio App.3d 38 (Ohio Ct. App.) (trial court considering jurisdictional facts need not convert to summary judgment)
- Fischer v. Kent State Univ., 41 N.E.3d 840 (Ohio Ct. App.) (CBA preempts state-law claims where resolution requires CBA interpretation)
- Bennett v. Columbiana Cty. Coroner, 72 N.E.3d 242 (Ohio Ct. App.) (elements required to prove IIED)
- Burkes v. Stidham, 107 Ohio App.3d 363 (Ohio Ct. App.) (IIED standard discussion)
- Goldfuss v. Davidson, 79 Ohio St.3d 116 (Ohio 1997) (plain-error standard in civil cases)