public policy tort claim in Ohio

2005Id. at paragraph 5 of the syllabus. {¶ 34} Thus, appellant is entitled to bring a public policy tort claim regardless of whether she complied with R.C. 4113.52 , as long as she can identify a source of public policy separate from the public policy embodied in R.C. 4113.52 .

2004Id. at paragraph five of the syllabus. {¶ 21} McNett was entitled to bring a public policy tort claim against Hardin Credit Union, regardless of whether he complied with R.C. 4113.52 , as long as he could identify a source of public policy separate from the public policy embodied in R.C. 4113.52 .

2002To infer one would run contrary to legislative intent and the Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of those provisions. 1 {¶ 21} Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error has merit. {¶ 22} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: {¶ 23} “The trial court improperly found that the existence of a collective bargaining agreement bars the assertion of a public-policy tort claim by a terminated employee.” *43 {¶ 24} The origin of the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990),

2002To infer one would run contrary to legislative intent and the Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of those provisions. 1 {¶ 21} Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error has merit. {¶ 22} Appellant’s second assignment of error states: {¶ 23} “The trial court improperly found that the existence of a collective bargaining agreement bars the assertion of a public-policy tort claim by a terminated employee.” *43 {¶ 24} The origin of the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy is the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision in Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc. (1990),

2006Implicit in the trial court's entry is a determination if a plaintiff cannot meet the statutory provisions, the statute preempts a common-law public policy claim. {¶ 47} In Collins v. Rizkana (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 65 , the Ohio Supreme Court held: "In cases of multiple -source public policy, the statute containing the right and remedy will not foreclose recognition of the tort on the basis of some other source of public policy, unless it was the legislature's intent in enacting the statute to preempt common-law remedies.

2005McNett v. Hardin Community Federal Credit Union (2004), Allen App. No. 1-04-46, 2004-Ohio-6957 citing Iberis v. Mahoning Valley Sanitary District (Dec. 21, 2001), Trumbull App. No. 2000-T-0036, 2001-Ohio-8809 .