Price v. Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Prods., L.L.C.
2013 Ohio 2420
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Price, age 60, was a long-time employee of Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC.
- He was terminated in March 2011 after an outside audit of company computers and e-mail.
- Kaiser claimed termination was for violation of computer use policy prohibiting sexually explicit material.
- Price filed suit September 6, 2011 in Licking County Court of Common Pleas alleging wrongful discharge, age discrimination, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel.
- Trial court granted Kaiser summary judgment on all counts after weighing direct and indirect discrimination theories and contract/promissory estoppel claims.
- On appeal, Price challenges the trial court’s handling of age discrimination and contract/promissory estoppel theories.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there were genuine issues of material fact on age discrimination. | Price contends direct/indirect discrimination shown; direct evidence lacking but indirect prima facie shown | Kaiser argues non-discriminatory reason for termination; no pretext shown | No genuine issue; summary judgment affirmed on age claim. |
| Whether there were genuine issues of material fact on contract and promissory estoppel. | Price asserts implied/express contract and reliance | Employment at-will; no enforceable contract or promissory estoppel | No genuine issue; contract and promissory estoppel claims lacked evidence; summary judgment affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. Rock-Tenn Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 10 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (direct/indirect discrimination principles)
- Kohmescher v. Kroger Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 501 (1991) (burden-shifting framework for discrimination)
- Surry v. Cuyahoga Community College, 149 Ohio App.3d 528 (2002) (pretext inquiry under summary judgment for discrimination)
- Reasoner v. Bill Woeste Chevrolet, Inc., 134 Ohio App.3d 196 (1985) (at-will employment presumption and contract theory exception)
- Weiper v. W.A. Hill & Assoc., 104 Ohio App.3d 250 (1995) (persuasive value of employer praise does not create enforceable contract)
- Anders v. Specialty Chemical Resources, Inc., 121 Ohio App.3d 348 (1997) (statements of job security insufficient for promissory estoppel)
- Clipson v. Schlessman, 89 Ohio App.3d 230 (1993) (promissory estoppel elements and reliance)
- Reasoner v. Bill Woeste Chevrolet, Inc., 134 Ohio App.3d 196 (1985) (employment contract analysis)