2017 Ohio 1340
Ohio2017Background
- McGowan, a physician and executive director at Medpace, alleges she discovered and reported insurance-fraud practices and HIPAA/patient-privacy violations, refused to sign improper prescription renewals, and directed staff to correct privacy procedures.
- After raising concerns with staff and senior management, McGowan was removed from her supervisory role and then terminated.
- McGowan sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (relying on Ohio insurance-fraud law and HIPAA) and obtained a unanimous jury verdict awarding damages after a nine-day trial.
- The First District Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the statutory schemes at issue did not create the type of clear public policy exception to the at-will doctrine recognized in Greeley and thus granted a directed verdict for the employer.
- The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the cause as improvidently accepted and ordered that the court of appeals opinion not be cited as precedent except between the parties; two justices issued separate opinions (one concurring in part/dissenting in part; one dissenting).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether reporting/opposing insurance fraud and HIPAA violations falls within the Greeley public-policy exception to at-will employment | McGowan: statutes and federal patient-privacy protections create a clear public policy forbidding retaliation for reporting/ resisting violations | Medpace: the insurance-fraud statute and HIPAA do not impose an affirmative employee duty to report, do not expressly prohibit employer retaliation, nor plainly protect public health/safety | Court of Appeals: held the statutory schemes were not the kind of clear public policy required; appellate opinion later restricted by Ohio Supreme Court (case dismissed as improvidently accepted) |
| Whether the evidence supported denying a directed verdict (i.e., whether reasonable minds could find retaliatory discharge) | McGowan: evidence (meetings, complaints, immediate demotion/termination) permitted a jury verdict for wrongful discharge | Medpace: evidence legally insufficient under the court’s interpretation of public-policy requirements | Court of Appeals: entered directed verdict for Medpace; Ohio Supreme Court did not reach merits and dismissed the appeal, preserving no statewide precedent |
| Precedential weight of First District decisions (Hale and Dean) that narrow Greeley | McGowan/amicus: Greeley controls and creates the public-policy exception; appellate narrowing is inconsistent with Ohio Supreme Court precedent | Medpace: appellate court relied on Hale/Dean to narrowly define when statutes create public-policy exceptions | Justice Brunner (concurring in part): Supreme Court’s order restricting citation of the appellate opinion casts doubt on Hale and Dean; Justice O’Neill (dissent): criticized appellate misapplication of Greeley and Civ.R.50 |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 551 N.E.2d 981 (1990) (recognizes public-policy exception to at-will employment when discharge is for a reason prohibited by statute)
- Limited Stores, Inc. v. Pan Am. World Airways, Inc., 65 Ohio St.3d 66, 600 N.E.2d 1027 (1992) (standard for directed verdict / Civ.R. 50)
- Hale v. Volunteers of Am., 158 Ohio App.3d 415, 816 N.E.2d 259 (1st Dist. 2004) (First Dist. rule requiring statutes to impose reporting duty, prohibit retaliation, or protect health/safety to support public-policy discharge claim)
- Dean v. Consol. Equities Realty #3, L.L.C., 182 Ohio App.3d 725, 914 N.E.2d 1109 (1st Dist. 2009) (reaffirming Hale’s narrower approach to the Greeley public-policy exception)