The Ohio Supreme Court Holds for Employer in Lawsuit for Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
PRESS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 21, 2011
By:Meredith L. Mercurio
In a 7-0 decision, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today in Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-4609, that an employee who sues his former employer for wrongful termination in violation of public policy must identify the public policy that was violated by specific reference to the state or federal constitution, a federal or state law, an administrative rule or regulation, or a provision of common law. The ruling reversed the decision of the Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County.
Plaintiff Randall Dohme was fired by Eurand America, Inc. in 2003. He filed a wrongful discharge complaint in Montgomery County claiming that he had been terminated in retaliation for questioning the plant's fire safety equipment and procedures. He claimed that his complaints were never addressed and he eventually reported to an insurance auditor visiting the plant that a fire alarm inspection report was removed from the plant's computer records.
The employer moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiff was an "at will" employee who had been fired for insubordination in connection with his ignoring a directive from his employer ordering employees to refer any questions raised by outside insurance representatives to specified management representatives. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, holding that plaintiff had failed to identify a specific clear public policy that was violated by his termination, alleging in his complaint merely that his employer's actions had "jeopardized workplace safety."
On appeal to the Second District Court of Appeals, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The appellate court reasoned that there was a clear public policy generally favoring fire safety in the workplace and that retaliation against an employee raising such concerns violated public policy, regardless of the employee's motive for reporting safety concerns.
The Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and reversed the appellate court’s decision. Justice Cupp authored the opinion. He wrote that "to satisfy the clarity element of a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, a terminated employee must articulate a clear public policy by citation to specific provisions in the federal or state constitution, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law. A general reference to workplace safety is insufficient to meet the clarity requirement." The Court further clarified that a court may not sua sponte identify the source of the public policy that was violated. Because it concluded that plaintiff had not articulated a clear public policy applicable to his claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the Court reversed the order of the court of appeals.
