Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
33 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 1989–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc.green2 sentences2008Departing from the traditional at-will employment rule, the Supreme Court held that "the right of employers to terminate employment at will for `any cause' no longer includes the discharge of an employee where the discharge * * * contravenes public policy." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. 2007Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 17} In Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contr, Inc. (1989), 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 , the Ohio Supreme Court first recognized that there is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine when an employee is discharged or disciplined for a reason that violates the clear public policy of Ohio. | 2 | 14 |
Benjamin v. Pipolygreen2 sentences2005See Benjamin v. Pipoly (2003), 155 Ohio App.3d 171 , 183 (dealing with the Superintendent of Insurance and liquidators of insolvent insurers). 2005See Benjamin v. Pipoly (2003), 155 Ohio App.3d 171 , 183 , 2003 Ohio 5666, 800 N.E.2d 50 (dealing with the Superintendent of Insurance and liquidators of insolvent insurers). | 2 | 2 |
Collins v. Rizkanagreen2 sentences2013Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 70 (1995). {¶ 22} As to the issue of clarity, the question is whether there is a clear public policy to protect a specific public interest sufficient to justify an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. 2003If the nonmoving party fails to meet this burden, then summary judgment is appropriate. {¶ 22} We begin with an issue not addressed by the trial court. 3 In Ohio, the courts adhere to the at-will-employment doctrine, which refers to the *522 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 (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 , 652 N.E.2d 653 . | 1 | 5 |
Brunaugh v. Anomatic Corp.green1 sentence2026However, the at-will- employment doctrine is subject to certain exceptions, including: “(1) the existence of an implied or express contract which alters the terms of discharge; (2) the existence of promissory estoppel where representations or promises were made to an employee; and (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.” Brunaugh v. Anomatic Corp., 2025-Ohio-4833, ¶ 15 (5th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Deadwyler v. Akron Public Schools, Unpublished Decision (12-31-2003)green2 sentences2024Summit No. 21549, 2003-Ohio-7173 , ¶ 14 (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a contract employee’s claim because “[o]nly an employee at will may bring a cause of action under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.”); State v. Culgan, 9th Dist. 2024Summit No. 21549, 2003-Ohio-7173, ¶ 14 (affirming the trial court’s dismissal of a contract employee’s claim because “[o]nly an employee at will may bring a cause of action under the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.”); State v. Culgan, 9th Dist. | 1 | 1 |
Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)green1 sentence2021Id. at 200 ; see Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4193, ¶ 26 (noting that “this court has recognized other exceptions to the at-will-employment doctrine, including * * * breach of an implied contract.”). | 1 | 1 |
Dean v. Consolidated Equities Realty 3, L.L.C.green2 sentences2021Equities Realty #3, L.L.C., 182 Ohio App.3d 725 , 2009-Ohio-2480 , 914 N.E.2d 1109, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.) (“the public policy against the alleged conduct of [the defendant] is not manifested clearly enough to warrant abrogating the at-will-employment doctrine”). 2021Equities Realty #3, L.L.C., 182 Ohio App.3d 725 , 2009-Ohio-2480 , 914 N.E.2d 1109, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.) (“the public policy against the alleged conduct of [the defendant] is not manifested clearly enough to warrant abrogating the at-will-employment doctrine”). | 1 | 1 |
White v. Simpson Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2020White v. Simpson Industries, Inc., 1 Fed.Appx. 462, 468 (6th Cir. 2001); Hall v. ITT Automotive, 362 F.Supp.2d 952, 963 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Hall v. ITT AUTOMOTIVEgreen1 sentence2020White v. Simpson Industries, Inc., 1 Fed.Appx. 462, 468 (6th Cir. 2001); Hall v. ITT Automotive, 362 F.Supp.2d 952, 963 (N.D. | 1 | 1 |
Bauer v. Pottsville Area Emergency Medical Services, Inc.green1 sentence2003Serv., Inc. (Pa.Super.2000), 758 A.2d 1265, 1272 (Cavanaugh, J., concurring and dissenting). {¶ 13} The Ohio Supreme Court has expanded an exception to the at-will-employment doctrine when an employee discharge violates a “clear public policy.” *533 Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Painter v. Graley
green
2 sentences2003Serv., Inc. (Pa.Super.2000), 758 A.2d 1265, 1272 (Cavanaugh, J., concurring and dissenting). {¶ 13} The Ohio Supreme Court has expanded an exception to the at-will-employment doctrine when an employee discharge violates a “clear public policy.” *533 Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 . 2003Serv., Inc. (Pa.Super.2000), 758 A.2d 1265, 1272 (Cavanaugh, J., concurring and dissenting). {¶ 13} The Ohio Supreme Court has expanded an exception to the at-will-employment doctrine when an employee discharge violates a “clear public policy.” *533 Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 639 N.E.2d 51 . | 4 | 2001–2003 |
Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.
green
2 sentences2007Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 17} In Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contr, Inc. (1989), 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 , the Ohio Supreme Court first recognized that there is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine when an employee is discharged or disciplined for a reason that violates the clear public policy of Ohio. 2007Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100 , 483 N.E.2d 150 , paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶ 17} In Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contr, Inc. (1989), 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 , the Ohio Supreme Court first recognized that there is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine when an employee is discharged or disciplined for a reason that violates the clear public policy of Ohio. | 3 | 1990–2007 |
House v. Iacovelli (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2026House v. Iacovelli, 2020-Ohio-435, ¶ 11 , citing Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (1990). 2020Collins, 73 Ohio St.3d at 67-68 , 652 N.E.2d 653 ; House v. Iacovelli, ___ 22 January Term, 2020 Ohio St.3d ___ , 2020-Ohio-435 , ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 11, citing Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 234 , 551 N.E.2d 981 (1990). {¶ 61} When we defined the common-law tort of invasion of privacy, we declared that Ohio’s clear public policy prohibits the violation of a person’s right to privacy by the wrongful intrusion of private actors. | 2 | 2020–2026 |
Phung v. Waste Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences1990Phung, supra; Brandenburg, supra. In Mers , however, the Ohio Supreme Court carved two narrow exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine These two exceptions involve the doctrine of promissory estoppel and implied contract which modify original at-will contracts. 1989Phung v. Waste Management, Inc. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 100 , 23 OBR 260, 491 N.E.2d 1114 . | 2 | 1989–1990 |
Wright v. Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc.
green
2 sentences2022Mfg., Inc., 73 Ohio St.3d 571 , 574, 653 N.E.2d 381 (1995) (express or implied contract is one exception to the at-will employment doctrine). 2022Mfg., Inc., 73 Ohio St.3d 571 , 574, 653 N.E.2d 381 (1995) (express or implied contract is one exception to the at-will employment doctrine). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Reasoner v. Bill Woeste Chevrolet, Inc.
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 200 ; see Lunsford v. Sterilite of Ohio, L.L.C., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-4193, ¶ 26 (noting that “this court has recognized other exceptions to the at-will-employment doctrine, including * * * breach of an implied contract.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Arnett v. Precision Strip, Inc.
neutral
1 sentence2020Thus, “Sutton creates a very limited exception to the at-will employment doctrine for injured employees who suffer retaliation prior to instituting or pursuing a workers’ compensation claim.” Arnett v. Precision Strip, Inc., 2012-Ohio-2693 , 972 N.E.2d 168 , ¶ 19 (3d Dist.), quoting Rose v. CTL Aerospace, Inc., 12th Dist. No. CA2011-09-171, 2012-Ohio-1596 , ¶ 16. -23- {¶48} Courts have used a burden shifting framework in analyzing the causation and overriding-justification elements of a wrongful termination in violation of public policy claim. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Moore v. Animal Fair Pet Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences2010The narrow exception {¶ 22} Therefore we will recognize a very narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine similar to the one recognized in Moore v. Animal Fair Pet Ctr., Inc. (1995), 81 Ohio Misc.2d 46 , 674 N.E.2d 1269 . 2010The narrow exception {¶ 22} Therefore we will recognize a very narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine similar to the one recognized in Moore v. Animal Fair Pet Ctr., Inc. (1995), 81 Ohio Misc.2d 46 , 674 N.E.2d 1269 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.
green
1 sentence2005Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108 , 110-111 . {¶ 18} Here, appellees asserted that they had not promised appellant continued employment. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Haynes v. Zoological Society
green
1 sentence2003Haynes v. Zoological Soc. of Cincinnati (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 254 , syllabus. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Wagner v. Allied Steel & Tractor Co.
green
1 sentence2000The basic elements of a reverse discrimination case against an employer were set forth in Wagner v. Allied Steel Tractor Co., (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 611 , 614-615 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
White v. Federal Reserve Bank
green
1 sentence2000Bank (1995), 103 Ohio App.3d 534 , 538 , we held "* * * discrimination is much more than public policy in Ohio, it is clearly in and of itself an exception to any at-will employment agreement." White clearly stands for the proposition that a claim for discrimination is an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Aranda v. Insurance Co. of North America
red
1 sentence1991(Tex.1988), 748 S.W.2d 210 , it has also held that there is no exception to the at-will employment doctrine for the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lumpkin v. H & C COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
green
1 sentence1991Lumpkin v. H & C Communications, Inc. (Tex.App.1988), 755 S.W.2d 538 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Brandenburger v. Hilti, Inc.
green
1 sentence1990Phung, supra; Brandenburg, supra. In Mers , however, the Ohio Supreme Court carved two narrow exceptions to the at-will employment doctrine These two exceptions involve the doctrine of promissory estoppel and implied contract which modify original at-will contracts. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.