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 1 courts 2001–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
Collins v. Rizkanagreen2 sentences2016See Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 , 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995). 2016See Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 , 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995). | 3 | 3 |
Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc.green2 sentences2015See Collins v. Rizanka, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 , 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995); see also Dohme v. Eurand America, Inc., 130 Ohio St.3d 168 , 2011-Ohio-4609 , 956 N.E.2d 825 , ¶ 11. {¶15} But in Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 (1990), the Ohio Supreme Court recognized an exception to this employment-at-will doctrine. 2003Sharon failed to establish she was forced to leave the Mentor store because she spurned Stewart's sexual advances. {¶ 42} As appellants did not effectively claim Sears discharged or disciplined Sharon in violation of public policy, their argument reduces to sexual harassment in violation of public policy. 24 In Bell, the appellant based a tortious violation of public policy claim on Collins v. Rizkana 25 and Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 26 wherein the Ohio Supreme Court stated that Ohio recognizes claims for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy as an exception to the common la | 1 | 2 |
Dohme v. Eurand America, Inc.green2 sentences2015See Collins v. Rizanka, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 , 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995); see also Dohme v. Eurand America, Inc., 130 Ohio St.3d 168 , 2011-Ohio-4609 , 956 N.E.2d 825 , ¶ 11. {¶15} But in Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 (1990), the Ohio Supreme Court recognized an exception to this employment-at-will doctrine. 2015See Collins v. Rizanka, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 67 , 652 N.E.2d 653 (1995); see also Dohme v. Eurand America, Inc., 130 Ohio St.3d 168 , 2011-Ohio-4609 , 956 N.E.2d 825 , ¶ 11. {¶15} But in Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 , 551 N.E.2d 981 (1990), the Ohio Supreme Court recognized an exception to this employment-at-will doctrine. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Simonelli v. Anderson Concrete Co.
green
2 sentences2005The appellate court, without ruling on the merits of the claim, concluded that summary judgment was improper and held that "the act of firing an employee for consulting an attorney could serve as the basis for a public policy exception to the common law employment-at-will doctrine." Id. at 259 . 2001Simonelli v. Anderson Concrete Co. (1994), 99 Ohio App.3d 254 , 259 . | 2 | 2001–2005 |
Thompto v. Coborn's Inc.
green
2 sentences2005In so holding, the appellate court relied on the conclusion in Thompto v. Coborn's Inc. (N.D.Iowa 1994), 871 F.Supp. 1097 that "a consultation with a lawyer is so fundamental to our system of justice that an employer's discharge of an employee for consulting a lawyer would violate public policy." Id. {¶ 11} In Chapman v. Adia Services, Inc. (1997), 116 Ohio App.3d 534 , an employee was on a work-related visit at one of her employer's clients when she fell and sustained serious permanent knee injuries. 2005In so holding, the appellate court relied on the conclusion in Thompto v. Coborn's Inc. (N.D.Iowa 1994), 871 F.Supp. 1097 that "a consultation with a lawyer is so fundamental to our system of justice that an employer's discharge of an employee for consulting a lawyer would violate public policy." Id. {¶ 11} In Chapman v. Adia Services, Inc. (1997), 116 Ohio App.3d 534 , an employee was on a work-related visit at one of her employer's clients when she fell and sustained serious permanent knee injuries. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Chapman v. Adia Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005In so holding, the appellate court relied on the conclusion in Thompto v. Coborn's Inc. (N.D.Iowa 1994), 871 F.Supp. 1097 that "a consultation with a lawyer is so fundamental to our system of justice that an employer's discharge of an employee for consulting a lawyer would violate public policy." Id. {¶ 11} In Chapman v. Adia Services, Inc. (1997), 116 Ohio App.3d 534 , an employee was on a work-related visit at one of her employer's clients when she fell and sustained serious permanent knee injuries. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Phung v. Waste Management, Inc.
green
1 sentence2002Traditionally, the common law employment-at-will doctrine allowed an employer to terminate the employment of his worker "`at will for any cause, at any time whatsoever, even if done in gross or reckless disregard of [an] employee's rights.'" Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 382 , quoting Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc . (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 100 , 102 , quoting Peterson v. Scott Constr. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Painter v. Graley
green
1 sentence2002Traditionally, the common law employment-at-will doctrine allowed an employer to terminate the employment of his worker "`at will for any cause, at any time whatsoever, even if done in gross or reckless disregard of [an] employee's rights.'" Painter v. Graley (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 377 , 382 , quoting Phung v. Waste Mgt., Inc . (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 100 , 102 , quoting Peterson v. Scott Constr. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Peterson v. Scott Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2002Co., (1982), 5 Ohio App.3d 203 , 205 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
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.