2014 Ohio 3291
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- James T. Smith (Pierce Twp. Police Chief) and Frances S. Kelly (Township law director) were observed kissing in Smith's office by three officers on May 30, 2011; officers reported their observations and provided written statements.
- Smith was terminated as Chief on August 25, 2011; Kelly was terminated in January 2012.
- Kelly had a three-year Professional Services Agreement as law director containing a financial "escape clause."
- Smith and Kelly sued Pierce Township and Trustee Bonnie Batchler alleging breach of contract (Kelly), invasion of privacy (intrusion and publicity), and defamation; defendants moved for summary judgment.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Township and Batchler; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (Kelly) | Contract guaranteed three years; termination breached agreement and caused reliance damages | Township (client) may discharge attorney at will; recovery limited to quantum meruit; escape clause did not bar discharge | Court: Township could fire Kelly; recovery limited to quantum meruit; promissory estoppel inapplicable to political subdivisions engaged in governmental functions — summary judgment affirmed |
| Employee immunity (Batchler) | Batchler acted maliciously and outside her employment by soliciting officer statements and repeating alleged false statements | Batchler acted within official duties and is immune under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6); no evidence of malice/bad faith/wantonness | Court: Batchler entitled to political-subdivision employee immunity; no sufficient evidence of malice or publication to third parties — summary judgment affirmed |
| Invasion of privacy — intrusion | Peering through blinds into chief’s office was wrongful, highly offensive, and violated reasonable expectation of privacy | Officers routinely looked through the office door gap; office is a public workspace; peering not highly offensive | Court: Peering was not highly offensive given location and routine practice; intrusion claim fails; summary judgment affirmed |
| Invasion of privacy — publicity & defamation | Scheduling public/special meetings and failing to correct media amounted to public disclosure of private facts; Batchler defamed plaintiffs | Notices were lawful, generic, and did not disclose private facts; Township had no duty to counter media; Batchler immune | Court: No public disclosure of private facts; Township not liable for media reports; Batchler immune from defamation claim — summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox & Associates Co., L.P.A. v. Purdon, 44 Ohio St.3d 69 (Ohio 1989) (client may discharge attorney at will; recovery limited to quantum meruit)
- Hortman v. Miamisburg, 110 Ohio St.3d 194 (Ohio 2006) (promissory/ equitable estoppel inapplicable against political subdivisions performing governmental functions)
- Sustin v. Fee, 69 Ohio St.2d 143 (Ohio 1981) (elements of intrusion upon seclusion require that intrusion be highly offensive to a reasonable person)
- Anderson v. Massillon, 134 Ohio St.3d 380 (Ohio 2012) (definition of wanton conduct in tort context)
- Thompson v. McNeil, 53 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1990) (definition of reckless conduct in tort law)