Mezey v. Ohio Dev. Servs. Agency
2016 Ohio 8578
Ohio Ct. Cl.2016Background
- Mezey worked as an intermittent employee in ODSA’s Film Bureau from 2011, ultimately performing near full‑time duties and pressing supervisors to change her status to permanent.
- In June 2013 Mezey’s counsel sent a demand letter to ODSA requesting permanent employment and back pay; Mezey alleges hostility and reduced hours thereafter and says she was terminated in August 2013 when she attended a requested meeting.
- Mezey sued ODSA in the Court of Claims asserting wrongful discharge in violation of public policy (for consulting counsel), promissory estoppel, and a separate statutory claim; the statutory claim was dismissed before trial.
- A bench trial before Magistrate Renick resulted in findings that Mezey failed to prove wrongful discharge or promissory estoppel; Magistrate recommended judgment for ODSA.
- Mezey timely objected only to the magistrate’s factual findings on the wrongful‑discharge claim (arguing the termination was retaliatory and pretextual); she did not supply a trial transcript or affidavit supporting those factual objections.
- The trial judge reviewed the objections, found Mezey’s failure to submit a transcript limited the review to legal conclusions, and adopted the magistrate’s decision, entering judgment for ODSA and assessing costs to Mezey.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether terminating an employee for consulting an attorney supports a public‑policy wrongful‑discharge claim | Mezey: she retained counsel and was fired in retaliation after counsel’s demand letter | ODSA: the decisionmaker (Tolan) lacked knowledge of the letter and termination rested on legitimate business reasons | Court: Recognizes law that firing for consulting counsel can violate public policy, but Mezey failed to prove causation; magistrate’s credibility findings accepted and judgment for ODSA upheld |
| Whether the magistrate’s factual findings (knowledge of counsel; pretext) were erroneous | Mezey: documentary evidence (copies and cc’s of counsel correspondence) and testimony show Tolan knew and reasons were pretextual | ODSA: factual findings were supported; absent transcript objections cannot overturn magistrate | Held: Mezey didn’t file the required transcript/affidavit, so court accepted magistrate’s factual findings and limited review to legal conclusions; objections overruled |
| Standard and scope of trial‑court review of magistrate where objecting party provides no transcript | Mezey: disputed magistrate credibility and factual conclusions | ODSA: procedural rule requires transcript/affidavit; without it magistrate’s facts bind the court | Held: Under Civ.R. 53 and Ohio appellate precedent, without transcript/affidavit the trial court must accept magistrate’s factual findings and may review only legal conclusions |
| Promissory estoppel claim disposition | Mezey: sought to enforce promises converting intermittent work to permanent | ODSA: denied binding promise; contested facts | Held: Mezey did not prevail at trial on promissory estoppel; magistrate’s recommendation (judgment for ODSA) adopted (Mezey did not object to this recommendation) |
Key Cases Cited
- Simonelli v. Anderson Concrete Co., 99 Ohio App.3d 254 (supports that firing for consulting an attorney may ground a public‑policy wrongful‑discharge claim)
- Chapman v. Adia Servs., 116 Ohio App.3d 534 (holds terminating an employee for consulting a lawyer is repugnant to Ohio public policy)
- Kulick v. Ethicon Endo‑Surgery, Inc., 803 F. Supp. 2d 781 (federal district court recognizing Ohio public policy bars firing employees who retain counsel)
- Thompkins v. State, 78 Ohio St.3d 380 (discusses weight of the evidence standard)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (applies manifest‑weight review in civil cases)