Skerlec v. Ganley Chevrolet, Inc.
2012 Ohio 5748
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Skerlec was employed by Ganley Chevrolet as an automotive technician and joined the IAM Local 163; after a failed union-terms vote, Ganley alleged wrongdoing and terminated Skerlec following misconduct allegations.
- Skerlec alleged wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, unlawful wage withholding, and punitive damages.
- Ganley moved to dismiss; the trial court denied the motion and then Ganley moved to stay arbitration under the arbitration agreement with AAA Cleveland.
- The arbitration provision states unresolved workplace-wrongdoing claims shall be submitted to AAA in Cleveland, and its scope is limited to workplace-related matters; the court stayed only the coverable claims.
- The court ultimately held that three alleged intentional torts fall outside the arbitration scope, while wage-withholding and wrongful-discharge claims fall within scope; Ganley did not waive arbitration; remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of arbitration provision | Skerlec argues lack of consideration and indefinite terms | Ganley argues valid contract with mutual agreement to arbitrate | Enforceable contract; consideration found; terms sufficiently definite |
| Scope of arbitration provision for intentional torts | Three intentional torts fall within workplace wrongdoing scope | Torts outside scope; arbitration should not stay them | Three intentional torts outside scope; other claims within scope and stayed |
| Waiver of arbitration rights by filing motion to dismiss | Ganley waived arbitration by moving to dismiss first | Waiver not shown; conduct consistent with right to arbitrate | No waiver; timely stay granted for covered claims |
| Remand/partial affirmance of arbitration stay | Partial affirmation and partial reversal; proceed with arbitration for covered claims only |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. Philip Morris Inc., 120 Ohio App.3d 187 (8th Dist. 1997) (arbitration agreement requires consideration; unequal modification lacks consideration)
- Council of Smaller Ents. v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (1998) (arbitration enforceability requires contract precepts; stay only if referable to arbitration)
- State Farm Mut. Ins. Co. v. Blevins, 49 Ohio St.3d 165 (1990) (court must stay if issue is referable under contract for arbitration)
- Shumaker v. Saks Inc., 163 Ohio App.3d 173 (8th Dist. 2005) (scope and reviewing standard for arbitration decisions; de novo review for scope)
- Taylor Bldg. Corp. of Am. v. Benfield, 117 Ohio St.3d 352 (2008) (interpretation of arbitration terms; plain language governs)
- Church v. Fleishour Homes, Inc., 172 Ohio App.3d 205 (5th Dist. 2007) (waiver analysis under totality of circumstances; prompt assertion of arbitration rights)
- Harmon v. Philip Morris Inc., 120 Ohio App.3d 187 (8th Dist. 1997) (see above)