Nathan Hice v. David J. Joseph Co., 678 F. App'x 329

Nathan Hice, a DJJ broker with a prior car-crash incident and a brief 2011 departure from DJJ, developed a history of absenteeism and unresponsiveness at work.
In 2013 Hice had multiple no-call/no-show incidents and charged personal expenses to DJJ’s company American Express without reimbursing the company.
Hice reported being stalked by a woman and sought a temporary restraining order; DJJ personnel learned of his safety concerns but Angotti (a senior executive) did not know about the stalking when he decided to terminate Hice.
Angotti considered the unpaid personal charges (together with Hice’s earlier misconduct) a basis to fire Hice; Bonner and Luther carried out the termination.
After termination Hice sued in state court for wrongful termination; DJJ counterclaimed for conversion (iPhone/iPad) and unjust enrichment (unpaid card charges). Hice dismissed the state suit; the state court entered judgment for DJJ on its counterclaims.
Hice later filed a federal suit alleging FMLA violations and wrongful termination in violation of Ohio public policy; the district court granted summary judgment for DJJ, holding Hice’s federal claims were barred as compulsory counterclaims or, alternatively, failed on the merits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hice’s FMLA and wrongful-termination claims were compulsory counterclaims to DJJ’s earlier conversion/unjust-enrichment action	Hice contended his claims arose from distinct facts (stalking/retaliation/FMLA leave) and thus were not compulsory; relied on Wilson-like reasoning	DJJ argued the claims are logically related because DJJ’s prior claims and defenses overlap with facts central to Hice’s claims (credit-card charges, retention of devices)	Court held Hice’s claims were compulsory under Ohio’s logical-relation test and barred by res judicata
Whether district court erred in granting summary judgment on the merits of the FMLA and wrongful-termination claims	Hice argued DJJ’s proffered reasons (card charges, device retention) were pretext for retaliation related to his restraining-order efforts and FMLA-protected leave	DJJ maintained legitimate, nonretaliatory reasons (unpaid charges, performance/attendance issues, failure to return devices)	Court did not reach merits because claims were barred; alternative merits ruling also supported DJJ (district court had found no prima facie case)

Geauga Truck & Implement Co. v. Juskiewicz, 457 N.E.2d 827 (Ohio 1984) (defines Ohio compulsory-counterclaim logical-relation test)
Rettig Enters., Inc. v. Koehler, 626 N.E.2d 99 (Ohio 1994) (failure to assert compulsory counterclaim bars later suit)
Great Lakes Rubber Corp. v. Herbert Cooper Co., 286 F.2d 631 (3d Cir. 1961) (claims are compulsory when they are offshoots of same controversy)
Hambleton v. R.G. Barry Corp., 465 N.E.2d 1298 (Ohio 1984) (elements of unjust enrichment)
Donald v. Sybra, Inc., 667 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2012) (McDonnell Douglas framework applied to FMLA claims)
Sagan v. United States, 342 F.3d 493 (6th Cir. 2003) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc., 956 N.E.2d 825 (Ohio 2011) (wrongful-termination public-policy causation requires link to dismissal)
Sherman v. Pearson, 673 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio Ct. App. 1996) (sufficient legal or factual nexus under logical-relation test)