O'Malley-Donegan v. MetroHealth Sys.
2017 Ohio 1362
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Sept. 22, 2012 an STNA raised all four rails of a dementia patient’s bed and moved the roommate to the hallway; LPN Ann O’Malley‑Donegan admonished the aide and reported the incident as abuse to her supervisor and in writing.
- MetroHealth investigated, reported the incident to the Ohio Department of Health (ODH), disciplined the aide with a final written warning, and provided facilitywide retraining; ODH concluded the facility’s investigation was complete and that no abuse occurred.
- O’Malley‑Donegan continued to press the issue: she confronted administration at meetings, phoned ODH, attempted to file a police report, and left a retraining class early.
- Six weeks after the bed‑rail report, MetroHealth terminated O’Malley‑Donegan, citing repeated disciplinary history, creation of a hostile work environment, refusal to follow procedures, and grossly inappropriate behavior.
- She filed claims alleging retaliatory discharge under R.C. 3721.24, whistleblower retaliation under R.C. 4113.52, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; the trial court granted summary judgment for MetroHealth and the administrator, and O’Malley‑Donegan appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether discharge violated R.C. 3721.24 (retaliation for reporting suspected abuse) | O’Malley‑Donegan contends her report of abuse was protected and termination six weeks later is causally linked | MetroHealth argues temporal gap plus nondiscriminatory, legitimate reasons (past discipline and post‑report conduct) defeat causation and justify firing | No prima facie causal link; summary judgment for MetroHealth affirmed |
| Whether discharge violated R.C. 4113.52 (whistleblower) | O’Malley‑Donegan says she reasonably believed a criminal, imminently dangerous violation occurred and reported it | MetroHealth says employer corrected the conduct, disciplined the aide, retrained staff, and plaintiff’s written report lacked statutory ‘‘sufficient detail’’ identifying a law violation | Plaintiff failed to strictly comply with statutory requirements; no prima facie case; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether MetroHealth’s stated reasons were pretext for retaliation | O’Malley‑Donegan argues stated reasons mask retaliatory motive | MetroHealth points to documented prior discipline and disruptive conduct after the report | Evidence insufficient to show pretext; employer’s reasons were legitimate |
| Whether termination supports intentional infliction of emotional distress | O’Malley‑Donegan presented treating‑provider letters linking distress to firing | MetroHealth argues conduct was not extreme/outrageous and termination resulted from legitimate disciplinary process | Conduct not “extreme and outrageous” as required; claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of S.W. Ohio, Inc., 142 Ohio St.3d 236 (statutory protection for reporting abuse under R.C. 3721.24)
- Contreras v. Ferro Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 244 (strict compliance and employer‑correction opportunity under R.C. 4113.52)
- Pyle v. Pyle, 11 Ohio App.3d 31 (elements for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Dolan v. St. Mary’s Mem. Home, 153 Ohio App.3d 441 (burden shifting and pretext framework in retaliation cases)