484 N.E.2d 178 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1984
This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.
Plaintiff-appellant, Irene Welch, filed an action for damages arising out of her employment with defendant-appellee Brown's Nursing Home. The plaintiff, in her complaint, contends that she was wrongfully discharged from her employment. Plaintiff contends that her termination was in breach of her employment contract and in retaliation for her reporting alleged violations of R.C.
The record reflects that appellant did report alleged patient mistreatment to the Ohio Commission on Aging. The record further reflects that a meeting of all the employees on the third shift, of which appellant was one, was called prior to commencement of the shift. It was during this meeting that appellee, Rev. P.J. Brown, allegedly embarrassed and threatened appellant, causing her to become so upset that she left work a few hours later. Thereafter, appellant met with Rev. Brown and his wife, and a handwritten document was executed which reads:
"I Irene Welch was asked by Rev. Prentice Brown to take a L.O.A. [leave of absence] without pay because of an incident against the Brown's Nursing Home. I understand this is not a fire a L.O.A. [sic] until the problem is solved.
"(X) Rev. P.L. [sic] Brown, Adm.
"(X) Irene Welch[.]"
Since February 11, 1981, the date the document was written, until initiation of the cause sub judice, neither party has contacted the other concerning resumption of appellant's duties.
Appellant brings four assignments of error. In the first assignment, appellant contends that the court erred in granting summary judgment. Appellant's underlying complaint in the court's finding that there was no implied contract of employment between the parties. Appellant admits in her deposition that she had no contract at the time her employment initially commenced, but claims that a contract may be implied from the handwritten document set forth above. We disagree.
The law in Ohio is that a contract of employment for an indefinite term is to be considered a contract terminable at will by either party. Henkel v. Educational Research Council ofAmerica (1976),
In her second assignment, appellant contends that the court erred in finding that the complaint did not encompass a cause of action for tort. A review of the complaint reflects that it is grounded on the alleged breach of an implied contract of employment. Appellant contends that the assertion in the complaint of a violation of the laws governing nursing homes is an assertion of a tort. We find no merit to appellant's contention. The violation of the statutes governing nursing homes does not give rise to a civil action for damages for the reasons given in response to the third assignment. The assignment is overruled.
The third assignment of error presents the issue of whether a civil cause of action is to be implied from R.C.
"(G) No home or employee of a home shall retaliate against any person who: *17
"(1) Exercises any right set forth in sections
"(2) Appears as a witness in any hearing conducted under this section and section
"(3) Files a civil action alleging a violation of sections
"If, under the procedures outlined in this section, a home or its employee is found to have retaliated, the violator may be fined up to one thousand dollars."
We find the case of Fawcett v. G.C. Murphy Co., supra, to be controlling. The court in Fawcett was confronted with the issue of "whether the `statutory policy' set forth in R.C.
In the cause sub judice, the General Assembly has provided a remedy, namely, a fine up to one thousand dollars. The General Assembly has further provided that the Department of Health is to assess the fine, R.C.
The final assignment of error asserting error in the court's finding that R.C.
All assignments of error having been ruled upon, it is the decision of this court that the judgment herein appealed from be, and the same hereby is, affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
KEEFE, P.J., DOAN and KLUSMEIER, J JJ., concur.