2003 Ohio 5748 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2003
{¶ 2} On October 15, 1998, Susan Barlowe ("Barlowe") was employed as a behind the wheel driving instructor for AAAA. On that date, she was involved in an automobile accident, causing her to be unable to work. Barlowe filed a workers' compensation claim stemming from the accident. On May 3, 1999, she was released by her physician to return to work, at which time she was scheduled as a part-time classroom instructor. Barlowe returned to work for AAAA from May, 1999, through October, 1999, and from December, 1999, through September, 2000. She has not worked for AAAA since that time.
{¶ 3} In June of 1999, Defendant placed newspaper advertisements for driving instructors. According to Barlowe, these advertisements were placed in retaliation for her filing a workers' compensation claim. Consequently, on November 18, 1999, Barlowe filed a complaint, asserting claims of disability discrimination, in violation of R.C. Ch. 4112; negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress; and retaliatory discharge due to her filing of a workers' compensation claim. Barlowe's husband asserted a claim for loss of consortium. On October 3, 2000, AAAA filed a Motion to Dismiss Barlowe's claims of disability discrimination and retaliatory discharge under R.C.
{¶ 4} On February 26, 2002, AAAA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on all of the Barlowes' remaining claims. Prior to ruling on AAAA's Motion, the trial judge retired, and the action was reassigned to another common pleas judge. On January 31, 2003, the trial court sustained AAAA's Motion. Specifically, the court noted that the claims of retaliatory discharge and disability discrimination had been dismissed by that court on November 22, 2000. It granted summary judgment on the public policy claim, indicating that the jeopardy element of her claim had not been met. The trial court also granted summary judgment on Barlowe's emotional distress claims and her husband's derivative loss of consortium claim.
{¶ 5} Barlowe raises two assignments of error on appeal.
{¶ 6} "I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS FOR DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION PURSUANT TO R.C. 4112 AND FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE IT IMPROPERLY APPLIED THE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF REVISED CODE SECTION
{¶ 7} Barlowe challenges the trial court's decision which granted summary judgment on her disability discrimination claim under R.C. Ch. 4112. She asserts that the trial court failed to recognize that she had alleged disability discrimination, in violation of R.C. Ch. 4112, as a separate and alternative claim to her retaliatory discharge claim, based on her filing and pursuing a workers' compensation claim. She further argues that she was not required to elect between R.C. Ch. 4112 and R.C.
{¶ 8} Our review of the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment is de novo. See Helton v. Scioto Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1997),
{¶ 9} In Nolan v. Nolan (1984),
{¶ 10} "[T]he doctrine provides that the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels. * * *
{¶ 11} "[T]he doctrine functions to compel trial courts to follow the mandates of reviewing courts. Thus, where at a rehearing following remand a trial court is confronted with substantially the same facts and issues as were involved in the prior appeal, the court is bound to adhere to the appellate court's determination of the applicable law."
{¶ 12}
{¶ 13} Turning to the circumstances herein, although the trial court did not cite the law of the case doctrine, it granted summary judgment on the retaliation and disability discrimination claims, stating "[t]hese two claims were dismissed by this Court on November 22, 2000." Whether that doctrine could have been applied as a basis for summary judgment ruling depends on whether the Chapter 4112 disability discrimination claim was, in fact, dismissed by prior Order. The November 22, 2000, Order dismissed the "actions of handicap discrimination and retaliation brought under R.C.
{¶ 14} Ultimately, this Court need not decide whether November 22, 2000, decision, in fact, dismissed both claims or, alternatively, whether the trial court misinterpreted the prior decision when it concluded that the disability discrimination under R.C. 4112 had been dismissed. The statute of limitations for claims of disability discrimination, pursuant to R.C. Ch. 4112, is six years. See Cosgrove v.Williamsburg of Cincinnati Mgt. Co., Inc., (1994)
{¶ 15} During oral argument, AAAA asserted, as an alternate basis for affirming the trial court's grant of summary judgment, that Barlowe cannot create a genuine issue of material fact as to her disability discrimination claim and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Citing the de novo standard of review, AAAA invited this Court to review the summary judgment briefing and the evidence before the trial court and to rule that summary judgment in its favor was proper. We decline to do so. Because the trial court addressed Barlowe's disability discrimination claim solely on statute of limitations grounds, it did not reach the substantive elements of her claim. Under these circumstances, it is preferable that the trial court address these elements in the first instance by addressing the non-statute of limitations aspects of AAAA's motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 16} The first assignment of error is sustained.
{¶ 17} "II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE DEFENDANT ON PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM FOR WRONGFUL DISCHARGE IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN A SEPARATE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR COMMON LAW TORT AGAINST DEFENDANT NOTWITHSTANDING PLAINTIFF'S CLAIMS PURSUANT TO STATUTE."
{¶ 18} Barlowe claims that the trial court improperly granted summary judgment on her claim of wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against disability discrimination, arguing that it incorrectly concluded that she could not satisfy the jeopardy element of that Greeley claim.
{¶ 19} Ohio adheres to the doctrine of employment at will, which refers to the traditional rule that "a general or indefinite hiring is terminable at the will of either party, for any cause, no cause or even in gross or reckless disregard of any employee's rights." Collins v.Rizkana,
{¶ 20} "`Clear public policy' sufficient to justify an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine is not limited to public policy expressed by the General Assembly in the form of statutory enactments, but may also be discerned as a matter of law based on other sources, such as the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States, administrative rules and regulations, and the common law."
{¶ 21} The elements of a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are well-established:
{¶ 22} "1. That clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law (the clarity element).
{¶ 23} "2. That dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element).
{¶ 24} "3. The plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy (the causation element).
{¶ 25} "4. The employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal (the overriding justification element)."
{¶ 26} Collins,
{¶ 27} Herein, the trial court ruled that the clarity element had been satisfied, but that the jeopardy element had not been met. Citing toWiles v. Medina Auto Parts,
{¶ 28} Barlowe appeals the trial court's determination that the jeopardy element was not met. Specifically, she claims that she may maintain both a statutory claim under R.C. Ch. 4112 and a common-law tort claim based on the public policy expressed by that statute, pursuant to Greeley and its progeny. AAAA responds that Greeley claims are unavailable when the statutory scheme parallels the damage remedies available in a common-law tort action.
{¶ 29} In Kulch v Structural Fibers, Inc.,
{¶ 30} The Kulch decision was immediately applied in Livingstonv. Hillside Rehabilitation Hosp.,
{¶ 31} Thereafter, various courts applying Ohio law have ruled that a Greeley claim based on the public policy expressed in R.C. 4112 could be pursued alongside a statutory discrimination claim. E.g., Whitev. Honda of America Mfg., Inc.,
{¶ 32} Last year in Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, supra, the Supreme Court distinguished Kulch and applied its holdings narrowly. Therein, the plaintiff alleged that he had been wrongfully discharged for exercising his rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"),
{¶ 33} "An analysis of the jeopardy element necessarily involves inquiring into the existence of any alternative means of promoting the particular public policy to be vindicated by a common-law wrongful-discharge claim. Where, as here, the sole source of the public policy opposing the discharge is a statute that provides the substantive right and remedies for its breach, `the issue of adequacy of remedies' becomes a particularly important component of the jeopardy analysis. `If the statute that establishes the public policy contains its own remedies, it is less likely that tort liability is necessary to prevent dismissals from interfering with realizing the statutory policy.' Simply put, there is no need to recognize a common-law action for wrongful discharge if there already exists a statutory remedy that adequately protects society's interests. In that situation, the public policy expressed in the statute would not be jeopardized by the absence of a common-law wrongful-discharge action in tort because an aggrieved employee has an alternate means of vindicating his or her statutory rights and thereby discouraging an employer from engaging in the unlawful conduct."
{¶ 34} In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court rejected the appellant's assertion that Kulch directed it to recognize a common law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the FMLA, on the ground that the FMLA did not provide a complete remedy. It reasoned:
{¶ 35} "Kulch does not, as Wiles argues, stand for the proposition that statutory remedies are inadequate — therefore warranting a Greeley claim — when those remedies provide something less than the full panoply of relief that would be available in a tort cause of action for wrongful discharge. Importantly, the analysis upon which Wiles relies garnered the votes of only three justices. Thus, Kulch is not controlling authority on the question of whether the remedies provided in a statute are sufficiently comprehensive to render unnecessary the recognition of a separate common-law Greeley claim based solely on the same statute — much less a Greeley claim based on a federal statute that was the product of a Congressional balancing of right and remedy that we ought not disturb."
{¶ 36} Turning to the case before us, the trial court relied upon the Supreme Court's reasoning in Wiles in determining that Barlowe could not avail herself of a common law tort action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, based solely on Ohio's statute against disability discrimination. Barlowe claims that this reliance on Wiles was inappropriate, arguing that she did not bring claims under the FMLA. She further asserts that, in Pytlinski v. Brocar Prod., Inc.,
{¶ 37} Although the Supreme Court has not yet applied its reasoning in Wiles to wrongful discharge claims based on R.C. Ch. 4112, there is no indication that the principles expressed therein are limited to FMLA-based claims. Rather, the Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the jeopardy element involves an inquiry into whether the statute provides an adequate remedy to the plaintiff. See Collins, supra (adequacy of remedies issue arises where "the right and remedy are part of the same statute which is the sole source of the public policy opposing the discharge."); Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc. (1989),
{¶ 38} The Supreme Court's ruling in Pylinski does not alter this conclusion. In that case, the Court held that the plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy was governed by the four-year statute of limitations for tort actions not specifically covered by other statutory sections and not the limitations period set forth in the Whistleblower Statute, R.C.
{¶ 39} Barlowe has relied upon R.C. Ch. 4112, including R.C.
{¶ 40} Barlowe's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 41} The judgment of the trial court will be AFFIRMED in PART, REVERSED in PART, and REMANDED for further proceedings, including consideration of the non-statute of limitations aspects of AAAA's motion for summary judgment.
YOUNG, J. and BRYANT, J., concur.
