Richardson v. Clinical Computing P.L.C.
2016 Ohio 8065
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Jack Richardson (born 1949) sued Clinical Computing PLC, Clinical Computing, Inc., and Clinical Computing U.K. Ltd. in 2007 alleging age discrimination, breach of contract, breach of public policy, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and punitive damages stemming from his 2006 termination.
- Richardson’s complaint listed UK addresses for Clinical Computing PLC and Clinical Computing U.K. Ltd.; the clerk mailed summons/complaint by registered mail to those UK addresses and by certified mail to Clinical Computing, Inc.’s Ohio agent.
- Defendants moved to dismiss arguing improper service on PLC under the Hague Service Convention, lack of personal jurisdiction over U.K. Ltd., that Inc. was not Richardson’s employer (so several claims failed), and that several counts failed to state claims.
- The trial court dismissed PLC for improper service under the Hague Convention and dismissed Richardson’s claims against Clinical Computing, Inc., for failure to state a claim.
- On appeal the court held: (1) Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention permits service by postal channels when the destination state has not objected (the UK did not object); thus service on Clinical Computing PLC was effective; and (2) Clinical Computing, Inc. was not Richardson’s employer under the 1998 service agreement, so most contract-based claims against Inc. fail, but Richardson stated a viable age-discrimination claim against Inc. limited to hiring practices under R.C. 4112.14.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service on Clinical Computing PLC was effective under the Hague Service Convention (Article 10(a)) | Richardson: sending by registered mail to PLC (and lack of UK objection) satisfied Article 10(a); service effective | Defendants: Article 10(a) does not permit service by mail; Hague requires central-authority procedure | Court: Article 10(a) allows service by postal channels where the destination state has not objected; UK did not object → service effective on PLC |
| Whether Clinical Computing, Inc. is Richardson’s employer for contract-based claims | Richardson: Inc. employed him (W-2, direct deposit evidence asserted in opposition); employment not exclusively governed by PLC contract | Defendants: 1998 service agreement shows PLC was employer and canceled other arrangements; Inc. is a Group member, not a contracting party | Court: The 1998 agreement (incorporated in the pleadings) makes PLC the employer and cancels other agreements; Inc. is not party to the contract → Inc. not employer |
| Whether breach of contract, breach of covenant, promissory estoppel, and breach of public policy claims survive against Inc. | Richardson: factual allegations suffice to state claims against Inc. | Defendants: No contractual relationship with Inc.; claims fail as matter of law | Court: These claims fail against Inc. because Richardson lacked a contract with Inc. and the agreement negates reliance/at-will theory; dismissals affirmed |
| Whether age-discrimination claim against Inc. survives | Richardson: complaint alleges age-based actions (56 at termination) and that younger candidates were hired/not interviewed; supports claim against Inc. | Defendants: Richardson not employed by Inc.; statute of limitations and improper party | Court: Although many claims fail, allegations support a possible R.C. 4112.14 age-discrimination claim against Inc. as to hiring → dismissal reversed limited to hiring claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk, 486 U.S. 694 (explains Hague Service Convention purpose and central-authority scheme)
- Ackermann v. Levine, 788 F.2d 830 (2d Cir.) (Article 10(a) construed to permit service by mail)
- Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798 (9th Cir.) (Article 10(a) permits service by postal channels)
- Bankston v. Toyota Motor Corp., 889 F.2d 172 (8th Cir.) (discusses state objections under Article 21)
- Nuovo Pignone, Spa v. Storman Asia M/V, 310 F.3d 374 (5th Cir.) (interprets Article 10(a) narrowly—no service by mail)
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (Ohio 1990) (public-policy exception to at-will doctrine)
- Meyer v. UPS, 122 Ohio St.3d 104 (Ohio 2009) (scope and limitations for age-discrimination claims under Ohio law)