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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2004–2020 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daniel R. Arban, Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. West Publishing Corp., Defendant-Appellant/cross-Appelleegreen2 sentences2020This is because "the right to non-interference with medical leave * * * is not absolute." Arban, 345 F.3d at 401 . 2018See Arban v. West Publishing Corp., 345 F.3d 390, 400-401 (6th Cir. 2003.) {¶20} For an interference claim, a plaintiff must establish that: “(1) he was an eligible employee, (2) defendant was a covered employer, (3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA, (4) he gave defendant notice of his intent to take leave, and (5) the defendant denied him FMLA benefits or interfered with FMLA rights to which he was entitled.” Harris v. Metro. | 2 | 4 |
Harris v. METRO. GOV'T NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON CO. TNgreen1 sentence2018Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 594 F.3d 476, 482 (6th Cir. 2010). | 1 | 1 |
Romans v. Michigan Department of Human Servicesgreen1 sentence2013In order to state an interference claim pursuant to the FMLA, [plaintiff] ‘must show that (1) he was an eligible employee; (2) [defendant] was an employer subject to the FMLA; (3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) he gave [defendant] notice of his intention to take FMLA leave; and (5) [defendant] denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.’” Case No. 2012-03719 -9- DECISION Gates v. United States Postal Serv., 502 Fed.Appx. 485, 488-489 (6th Cir.2012), quoting Romans v. Mich. Dept. of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826, 840 (6th Cir.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Gates v. United States Postal Servicegreen1 sentence2013In order to state an interference claim pursuant to the FMLA, [plaintiff] ‘must show that (1) he was an eligible employee; (2) [defendant] was an employer subject to the FMLA; (3) he was entitled to leave under the FMLA; (4) he gave [defendant] notice of his intention to take FMLA leave; and (5) [defendant] denied him FMLA benefits to which he was entitled.’” Case No. 2012-03719 -9- DECISION Gates v. United States Postal Serv., 502 Fed.Appx. 485, 488-489 (6th Cir.2012), quoting Romans v. Mich. Dept. of Human Servs., 668 F.3d 826, 840 (6th Cir.2012). | 1 | 1 |
Price v. Multnomah Countygreen1 sentence2004See Price v. Multnomah County, 132 F.Supp.2d 1290, 1297 (D.Or.2001); see generally Arban v. West Publ’g Corp., Nos. 01-2278/2370, 345 F.3d 390 , 2003 U.S.App. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Randolph v. Grange Mutual Casualty Co.
neutral
2 sentences2016Co., 185 Ohio App.3d 589 , 2009-Ohio- 6782, ¶ 8 (10th Dist.) For an interference claim, the issue is whether the employer provided its employee the entitlements set forth in the FMLA; the employer’s intent is not a relevant part of the analysis. 2016Id., citing Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc. (C.A.6, 2006), 443 F.3d 501, 507 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Gale Edgar v. Jac Products, Inc.
green
1 sentence2016Id., citing Edgar v. JAC Prods., Inc. (C.A.6, 2006), 443 F.3d 501, 507 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Doyle v. Fairfield Machine Co., Inc.
green
2 sentences2010The elements of a claim for interference with an employment relationship are the same as those required to prove interference with a contract, except that the word “contract” is substituted by the phrase “employment relationship.” Doyle v. Fairfield Machine Co. (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 192, 216 , 697 N.E.2d 667 . {¶ 56} The trial court dismissed the union’s interference claims because it found that the union’s complaint and attached exhibits demonstrated that the union could not prove a breach of contract or that Herrholtz, Chojnacki, and CBS acted without justification, which are two essential 2010The elements of a claim for interference with an employment relationship are the same as those required to prove interference with a contract, except that the word “contract” is substituted by the phrase “employment relationship.” Doyle v. Fairfield Machine Co. (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 192, 216 , 697 N.E.2d 667 . {¶ 56} The trial court dismissed the union’s interference claims because it found that the union’s complaint and attached exhibits demonstrated that the union could not prove a breach of contract or that Herrholtz, Chojnacki, and CBS acted without justification, which are two essential | 1 | 2010–2010 |
State v. Awan
green
2 sentences2010Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 , 22 OBR 199, 489 N.E.2d 277 . {¶ 60} Second, the trial court found that even if there had been a breach of the CBA, the union could not establish a lack of justification, another element of an interference claim, because former R.C. 3319.0810 and the CBA both authorized the privatization of the board’s transportation services. 2010Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 , 22 OBR 199, 489 N.E.2d 277 . {¶ 60} Second, the trial court found that even if there had been a breach of the CBA, the union could not establish a lack of justification, another element of an interference claim, because former R.C. 3319.0810 and the CBA both authorized the privatization of the board’s transportation services. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
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.