State ex rel. McQueen v. Weibling-Holliday (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5107

McQueen opened a Chase checking account with a $25 deposit and alleged he was promised a $125 bonus after the initial deposit.
He later sought overdraft protection; subsequent attempts to overdraw were refused and he complained to bank staff in person.
McQueen alleges employee Krystina Weibling-Holliday told him he would not get the bonus because he is a Black Christian and that Chase improperly closed his account; Weibling-Holliday denies the discriminatory remark.
McQueen filed a §1983 action in federal court alleging due-process and equal-protection violations; that suit was dismissed and is on appeal to the Sixth Circuit.
He also filed an original-action mandamus petition in the Ohio Court of Appeals seeking $100/day until Chase restored his account and paid the bonus; the court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action.
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, reasoning McQueen lacked a clear legal right and adequate alternative remedies existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relator has a clear right to mandamus to compel payment of the bonus or reopening of the account	McQueen: employee discriminated and thus has a right to relief now via mandamus	Weibling-Holliday: mandamus is not appropriate; alleged private dispute/contract claim and discrimination claims are or will be litigated in federal court	Denied — no clear legal right to mandamus relief against a private employee
Whether discrimination claims are barred or duplicative	McQueen: discrimination occurred and justifies extraordinary relief	Defendant: discrimination claims are being litigated in federal court; res judicata/duplicative litigation applies	Treated as res judicata for purposes of mandamus — claims litigated in federal court preclude relitigation here
Whether an adequate remedy at law exists (i.e., contract/breach claim)	McQueen: mandamus is required because bank/employee refused bonus and closed account	Defendant: any claim to bonus or account reopening sounds in contract; ordinary breach-of-contract suit is adequate	Denied — breach-of-contract suit is adequate remedy, so mandamus inappropriate

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus standards: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
State ex rel. Russell v. Duncan, 64 Ohio St.3d 538 (1992) (mandamus will not lie where an adequate remedy at law, such as breach-of-contract action, exists)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus will not enforce a private right against a private person)