Mezey v. Ohio Dev. Servs. Agency, 2016 Ohio 7236

Mezey was an intermittent, part‑time employee in the Ohio Film Office (Travel & Tourism/Small Business Investment divisions) from March 2011 until her termination in August 2013; over time she performed duties comparable to prior full‑time staff and often worked up to 40 hours/week.
Supervisors and managers repeatedly discussed creating a permanent full‑time Film Office Manager position; Mezey drafted a white paper and proposed administrative‑code changes to fund such a position via increased application fees.
In June 2013 Mezey’s counsel sent a demand letter to DSA Director Goodman seeking immediate full‑time appointment with back pay and benefits; Mezey perceived a chilly reception thereafter.
DSA initiated an HR job audit of the Film Office in June 2013; in July 2013 Mezey was told to limit hours to intermittent limits (≈20/week).
On August 27, 2013 HR and Chief of Communications/Policy Lynn Tolan informed Mezey that her position was terminated; Mezey sued for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (retaliation for consulting counsel) and promissory estoppel (reliance on promises to be made permanent).
The magistrate found for defendant: Mezey failed to prove retaliatory termination based on consulting counsel and failed to prove promissory estoppel because Director Goodman had exclusive hiring authority and plaintiff could not reasonably rely on promises by others.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether termination violated public policy because Mezey retained counsel (retaliation)	Mezey contends DSA terminated her after counsel sent demand letter, so firing for consulting an attorney violates public policy	DSA (Tolan) argues termination followed HR job audit and managerial disagreement over Film Office direction; Tolan testified she did not know of counsel/letter	Held for DSA: plaintiff failed to prove causation; court found legitimate business justification and credible testimony that termination was not motivated by retention of counsel
Whether promissory estoppel applies to alleged promises of a permanent full‑time appointment	Mezey claims repeated assurances from supervisors/managers that she would be appointed full‑time, and she reasonably relied on those promises to her detriment	DSA argues only the Director had statutory hiring authority (R.C. 122.11); promises by subordinate officials were not binding and reliance was unreasonable	Held for DSA: promissory estoppel failed—no clear, enforceable promise by authorized official and reliance was not reasonable under statutory scheme

Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, 96 Ohio St.3d 240 (Ohio 2002) (general rule of at‑will employment)
Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100 (Ohio 1985) (elements for promissory estoppel in employment context)
Painter v. Graley, 70 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 1994) (public policy exception sources beyond statutes)
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134 (Ohio 1997) (four‑part test for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy)
Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65 (Ohio 1995) (clarity/jeopardy questions of law; causation/justification questions of fact)
Simonelli v. Anderson Concrete Co., 99 Ohio App.3d 254 (10th Dist. 1995) (firing for consulting an attorney can support public‑policy exception)
Kulick v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 781 (S.D. Ohio 2011) (it is against Ohio public policy to terminate an employee for retaining counsel)
Drake v. Medical College of Ohio, 120 Ohio App.3d 493 (10th Dist. 1997) (promissory estoppel not available where agency position contradicts express statutory law)
Halluer v. Emigh, 81 Ohio App.3d 312 (9th Dist. 1992) (mistaken advice/opinion of government agent does not create promissory‑estoppel claim)