WILLIAM E. MCMILLAN v. GLOBAL FREIGHT MANAGEMENT INC.
C.A. No. 12CA010248
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN
April 29, 2013
2013-Ohio-1725
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 11CV173823
MOORE, Presiding Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, William McMillan, appeals from the May 31, 2012 judgment entry of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm.
I.
{¶2} In 2010, Mr. McMillan suffered an on-the-job injury while working for, Defendant-Appellee, Global Freight Management, Inc. Mr. McMillan filed a workers’ compensation claim which was allowed for benefits due to his injuries. On May 11, 2011, the decision allowing benefits was amended to include additional conditions stemming from this injury.
{¶3} On May 16, 2011, Mr. McMillan was terminated from his employment with Global Freight Management, Inc.
{¶4} Mr. McMillan filed a complaint in common pleas court for wrongful termination in violation of
{¶5} Global Freight filed an answer denying that the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case because Mr. McMillan failed to comply with the notice requirements set forth in
{¶6} The trial court granted Global Freight’s motion to dismiss Mr. McMillan’s statutory claim for retaliatory discharge. It held that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. McMillan failed to give the requisite ninety day written notice to his employer pursuant to
{¶7} Mr. McMillan appealed, and raises one assignment of error for our consideration. We note that Mr. McMillan has not challenged the dismissal of the statutory cause of action for wrongful discharge due to failing to notify Global Freight of his claimed violation within the ninety days immediately following his discharge from employment.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING [GLOBAL FREIGHT MANAGEMENT, INC.’S] MOTION FOR SUMMARY [JUDGMENT] AS COURTS HAVE PREVIOUSLY CREATED TORT CLAIMS FOR WRONGFUL TERMINATION WHICH BYPASS THE REQUIREMENTS OF [
{¶8} In his sole assignment of error, Mr. McMillan argues that the trial court erred in granting Global Freight Management, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment because his termination violated public policy. Specifically, Mr. McMillan argues that the remedies available pursuant to
{¶9} In response, Global Freight contends that
{¶10} This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). Pursuant to
(1) [n]o genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 (1977). The party moving for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion and
{¶11}
No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim or instituted, pursued or testified in any proceedings under the workers’ compensation act for an injury or occupational disease which occurred in the course and arising out of his employment with that employer. Any such employee may file an action in the common pleas court of the county of such employment in which the relief which may be granted shall be limited to reinstatement with back pay, if the action is based upon discharge[.] * * * The action shall be forever barred unless filed within one hundred eighty days immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken, and no action may be instituted or maintained unless the employer has received written notice of a claimed violation of this paragraph within the ninety days immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶12} In Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 351, 2007-Ohio-6751, syllabus, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that:
An employee who is terminated from employment while receiving workers’ compensation has no common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy underlying
R.C. 4123.90 , which provides the exclusive remedy for employees claiming termination in violation of rights conferred by the Workers’ Compensation Act.
{¶13} As stated above, Mr. McMillan relies upon the Supreme Court of Ohio’s decision in Sutton, 2011-Ohio-2723, to support his argument for a common-law cause of action with regard to the remedies available pursuant to
{¶14} Second, even assuming that Mr. McMillan could rely upon Sutton as a basis for bringing a common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, Sutton itself defeats his argument regarding the remedies available for retaliatory discharge. The Sutton Court clearly stated that ”[t]he remedies available for wrongful discharge in violation
It would be nonsensical to acknowledge a tort in violation of public policy but fail to tailor the remedies in conformance with that public policy. We therefore hold that the remedies available for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy against retaliatory employment actions as expressed in
R.C. 4123.90 are limited to those listed inR.C. 4123.90 .
Id. Thus, Mr. McMillan’s argument is without merit in light of the fact that the Supreme Court of Ohio has specifically concluded that no other remedies are available to those who state claims for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in
{¶15} Based upon the record before us, and viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to Mr. McMillan, we cannot say that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Global Freight Management, Inc. The precedent set forth in Bickers and Sutton clearly limits Mr. McMillan to the remedies available for wrongful discharge in
{¶16} Mr. McMillan’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶17} Accordingly, the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellant.
CARLA MOORE
FOR THE COURT
BELFANCE, J.
HENSAL, J.
CONCUR.
APPEARANCES:
JUSTIN C. MILLER, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
SEAN P. ALLEN, Attorney at Law, for Appellee.