employment-at-will should be recognized doctrine in Ohio

2012According to the Supreme Court, whether conduct is prohibited by public policy must be discerned from “the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States, administrative rules and regulations, and the common law.” Id. (quoting Painter, 70 Ohio St. 377 , at paragraph three of the syllabus); see Painter, 70 Ohio St. 3d at 384 (“[A]n exception to the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will should be recognized only where the public policy alleged to have been violated is of equally serious import as the violation of a statute.”). {¶16} Ms. Pintagro has not directed this court to any constitutiona

2012According to the Supreme Court, whether conduct is prohibited by public policy must be discerned from “the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States, administrative rules and regulations, and the common law.” Id. (quoting Painter, 70 Ohio St. 377 , at paragraph three of the syllabus); see Painter, 70 Ohio St. 3d at 384 (“[A]n exception to the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will should be recognized only where the public policy alleged to have been violated is of equally serious import as the violation of a statute.”). {¶16} Ms. Pintagro has not directed this court to any constitutiona

2005Although a specific statute does not have to be violated in order for a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy to arise, “an exception to the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will should be recognized only where the public policy alleged to have been violated is of equally serious import as the violation of a statute.” Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377, 384 , 639 N.E.2d 51 , citing Greeley, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d at 234 , 551 N.E.2d 981 . {¶ 14} In his complaint, White alleged that there is a clear public policy requiring employers to maintain accurate employee

2005Although a specific statute does not have to be violated in order for a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy to arise, “an exception to the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will should be recognized only where the public policy alleged to have been violated is of equally serious import as the violation of a statute.” Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377, 384 , 639 N.E.2d 51 , citing Greeley, supra, 49 Ohio St.3d at 234 , 551 N.E.2d 981 . {¶ 14} In his complaint, White alleged that there is a clear public policy requiring employers to maintain accurate employee

2025However, “an exception to the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will should be recognized only where the public policy alleged to have been violated is of equally serious import as the violation of a statute.” Painter at 384 , citing Greeley at 234 . {¶ 28} “To be successful in a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) Clarity - That clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in common law; (2) Jeopardy – That dismissing employees under these circumstances woul

2002See id ., paragraph three of the syllabus, and Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc . (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 134 , 152 (finding that public policy could be discerned from federal as well as Ohio statutes). "[A]n exception to the traditional doctrine of employment-at-will should be recognized only where the public policy alleged to have been violated is of equally serious import as the violation of a statute." Painter at 384, citing Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc . (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 234 .