State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St. 3d 332

Jelinek filed a 1999 Franklin County Common Pleas action against Abbott Laboratories and related defendants alleging age-based retaliation, demotion, and constructive termination and seeking damages.
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on all claims, prompting an appeal by Jelinek.
In 2001, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed as to age discrimination, promissory estoppel, and constructive discharge and remanded for further proceedings; other claims were affirmed.
On remand, a jury found for Jelinek on age discrimination but did not prove constructive discharge or promissory estoppel; the jury awarded substantial damages.
On June 23, 2003, Judge Bessey entered a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) in favor of defendants on the age-discrimination claim and, alternatively, conditioned a new trial on the JNOV’s vacatur; promissory estoppel and constructive discharge judgments were entered for defendants.
By 2008–2009, Judge Schneider took over; he limited the retrial to age discrimination and excluded constructive-discharge issues from retrial; Jelinek sought extraordinary relief to require retrial on constructive discharge and to enforce the appellate mandate, which the court of appeals denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the lower courts patently disregarded the appellate mandate	Jelinek asserts Schneider violated Jelinek II’s mandate by excluding constructive-discharge evidence.	Schneider complied with the mandate; the earlier mandate did not require retrial of constructive discharge.	No patent/disregard; mandate not violated.
Whether extraordinary relief is appropriate to enforce the mandate	Jelinek lacks adequate ordinary remedies to enforce the mandate.	Relief not warranted where ordinary remedies exist (appeal/contempt).	Not appropriate; remedies adequate.
Whether Jelinek had an adequate ordinary remedy to challenge remand rulings	Jelinek can appeal or seek contempt for remand rulings.	Remedies exist; extraordinary relief unnecessary.	Yes, adequate remedies available.
Whether mandamus/procedendo/prohibition should issue to compel retrial on constructive discharge	Constructive-discharge retrial should be part of age-discrimination proceeding.	Scope of retrial limited to age discrimination; constructive-discharge not retried.	Not warranted as extraordinary relief.

State ex rel. Non-Employees of Chateau Estates Resident Assn. v. Kessler, 107 Ohio St.3d 197 (2005 Ohio) (mandamus basics; mandate enforcement principles)
State ex rel. Danziger v. Yarbrough, 114 Ohio St.3d 261 (2007 Ohio) (prohibition principles; jurisdictional considerations)
Hopkins v. Dyer, 104 Ohio St.3d 461 (2004 Ohio) (law-of-the-case doctrine; consistency of results)
Dannaher v. Crawford, 78 Ohio St.3d 391 (1997 Ohio) (law-of-the-case and mandate interpretation)
Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (1984 Ohio) (principles governing mandamus/appeal interplay)
State ex rel. Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47 (2010 Ohio) (adequacy of ordinary remedies; framework for extraordinary relief)
State ex rel. Hazel v. Bender, 125 Ohio St.3d 448 (2010 Ohio) (procedendo; jurisdictional limits on relief)
State ex rel. Pyle v. Bessey, 112 Ohio St.3d 119 (2006 Ohio) (mandamus/mandate interpretation in appellate context)
State ex rel. Obojski v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486 (2007 Ohio) (remand and enforcement of mandates)
Cordray v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229 (2009 Ohio) (procedural posture on extraordinary relief)