Ream v. Graffiti Foods, Ltd.
2017 Ohio 7190
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Steven Ream was a chef employed by Graffiti Foods and was terminated; CEO Phil Griesinger sent an industry-wide email announcing Ream was "no longer employed" and praising the company’s high standards.
- Ream sued for defamation, alleging the email implied he was fired for misconduct rather than for reasons he claimed (seeking a raise and workers' compensation).
- The trial court granted a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion and dismissed the complaint; Ream appealed.
- The appellate court reviews de novo on a motion to dismiss, accepting complaint allegations as true and construing them in the plaintiff’s favor.
- The email did not state specific misconduct but implied Ream failed to meet required standards, which could harm his ability to obtain future employment in the food-service industry.
- The Tenth District concluded the alleged implications could be defamatory at the pleading stage and reversed the dismissal, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the termination email is actionable defamation | Ream: email falsely implied he was fired for misconduct, harming his trade and employment prospects | Graffiti/Griesinger: email was opinion or permissible comment about personnel and not a false factual assertion | Reversed dismissal — email could be construed as alleging actionable false facts and survive a 12(B)(6) challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Perrysburg Twp. v. Rossford, 103 Ohio St.3d 79 (2004) (de novo review standard for dismissal on the pleadings)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (court accepts complaint allegations as true on motion to dismiss)
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (1975) (plaintiff must show set of facts entitling relief to avoid dismissal)
- Sweitzer v. Outlet Communications, Inc., 133 Ohio App.3d 102 (10th Dist. 1999) (definition of defamation under Ohio law)
- Am. Chem. Soc. v. Leadscope, Inc., 133 Ohio St.3d 366 (2012) (elements of a defamation claim)
- New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) (actual malice standard for public officials/figures)
- Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) (extension of Sullivan to public figures)