Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3721
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3721.24 (2026)

Whistleblower protection

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 29, 2017
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 49 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) No person or government entity shall retaliate against an employee or another individual used by the person or government entity to perform any work or services who, in good faith, makes or causes to be made a report of suspected abuse, neglect, or exploitation of a resident or misappropriation of the property of a resident; indicates an intention to make such a report; provides information during an investigation of suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation conducted by the director of health; or participates in a hearing conducted under section 3721.23 of the Revised Code or in any other administrative or judicial proceedings pertaining to the suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation. For purposes of this division, retaliatory actions include discharging, demoting, or transferring the employee or other person, preparing a negative work performance evaluation of the employee or other person, reducing the benefits, pay, or work privileges of the employee or other person, and any other action intended to retaliate against the employee or other person.

(B)(1) No person or government entity shall retaliate against a resident who reports or causes to be reported suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation; indicates an intention to make such a report; provides information during an investigation of alleged abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation conducted by the director; or participates in a hearing under section 3721.23 of the Revised Code or in any other administrative or judicial proceeding pertaining to the suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation; or on whose behalf any other person or government entity takes any of those actions.

(2) No person or government entity shall retaliate against a resident whose family member, guardian, sponsor, or personal representative reports or causes to be reported suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation; indicates an intention to make such a report; provides information during an investigation of alleged abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation conducted by the director; or participates in a hearing under section 3721.23 of the Revised Code or in any other administrative or judicial proceeding pertaining to the suspected abuse, neglect, exploitation, or misappropriation; or on whose behalf any other person or government entity takes any of those actions.

(3) For purposes of divisions (B)(1) and (2) of this section, retaliatory actions include abuse, verbal threats or other harsh language, change of room assignment, withholding of services, failure to provide care in a timely manner, and any other action intended to retaliate against the resident.

(C) Any person has a cause of action against a person or government entity for harm resulting from violation of division (A) or (B) of this section. If it finds that a violation has occurred, the court may award damages and order injunctive relief. The court may award court costs and reasonable attorney's fees to the prevailing party.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 5511 (Ohio 2014).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 5511 (Ohio 2014). · cites it 116× “employee or other person used to perform work or services who reports or indicates an intention to report suspected abuse or neglect of a long-term- care-facility or residential-care-facility resident is not required to report or indicate an intent to report the suspected abuse…”
Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc., 2013 Ohio 4147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 34× “{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Patricia Hulsmeyer appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing her claims for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24 and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy against defendants-appellees, her former employer, Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc.”
O'Malley-Donegan v. MetroHealth Sys., 2017 Ohio 1362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 11× “Specifically, she claimed her discharge was retaliation prohibited by two statutes: R.C. 3721.24 and 4113.52. After MetroHealth and Szatala filed a motion for summary judgment, appellant dismissed her complaint.”
Dolan v. St. Mary's Mem'l Home, 794 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “Her remedy lies in an action for retaliatory discharge pursuant to R.C. 3721.24. {¶ 18} Dolan has appealed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against her on the fifth count of her complaint.”
Shingler v. Provider Servs. Holdings, L.L.C., 2018 Ohio 2740 (Ohio Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “) (because she had an adequate remedy under R.C. 3721.24, employee who alleged that she was wrongfully discharged for reporting a supervisor’s verbal and emotional abuse of nursing home patients could not bring a common-law claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the public…”
Aziz v. Capital Sr. Living, Inc., 2021 Ohio 2515 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3× “The trial court committed reversible error by dismissing Count 1 of Aziz’s amended complaint, erroneously holding that Aziz was required to allege a sufficient act of abuse occurred in order to invoke the protections of R.C. 3721.24. 2. The trial court committed reversible error…”
Thompson v. Cooper, 2017 Ohio 5549 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “The second cause of action asserted a claim by both appellants against all appellees for retaliation in violation of R.C. 3721.24. The third cause of action asserted a claim by appellant Reece against Cooper Adel and Mitchell Adel for sexual harassment/hostile work environment.”
Harris v. Ohnh Emp, L.L.C., 2015 Ohio 3212 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015). “The first type of showing consists of evidence that the proffered bases for the plaintiff’s discharge never happened and are thus factually false.”
Mayo v. Bethesda Lutheran Communities, 2014 Ohio 3499 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “retaliated against her in violation of R.C. 3721.24 by demoting her, creating a hostile work environment, and ultimately terminating her employment.”
Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2024). · cites it 8× “) retaliatory termination under Ohio Rev. Code § 3721.24 (Count I)4 and a claim in the alternative for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Count II).”
Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2023). · cites it 5× “Her remedy lies in an action for retaliatory discharge pursuant to R.C. 3721.24. Id. at 721; see also Wiles v.”
Carovac v. Deepwood Ctr. (N.D. Ohio 2020). · cites it 3× “,”plaintiff’s brief appears to abandon the § 4112 allegation, and rely on her reference in Count Four to O.R.C. § 3721.24 which states in part: (A) No person or government entity shall retaliate against an employee or another individual used by the person or government entity to…”
Show all 14 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3721.24(A) — 6 cases
Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 5511 (Ohio 2014). “employee or other person used to perform work or services who reports or indicates an intention to report suspected abuse or neglect of a long-term- care-facility or residential-care-facility resident is not required to report or indicate an intent to report the suspected abuse…”
Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc., 2013 Ohio 4147 (Ohio Ct. App. 2013). “{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Patricia Hulsmeyer appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing her claims for retaliation under R.C. 3721.24 and for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy against defendants-appellees, her former employer, Hospice of Southwest Ohio, Inc.”
Dolan v. St. Mary's Mem'l Home, 794 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Her remedy lies in an action for retaliatory discharge pursuant to R.C. 3721.24. {¶ 18} Dolan has appealed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against her on the fifth count of her complaint.”
O'Malley-Donegan v. MetroHealth Sys., 2017 Ohio 1362 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “Specifically, she claimed her discharge was retaliation prohibited by two statutes: R.C. 3721.24 and 4113.52. After MetroHealth and Szatala filed a motion for summary judgment, appellant dismissed her complaint.”
Bashaw v. Majestic Care of Whitehall, LLC (S.D. Ohio 2024). “) retaliatory termination under Ohio Rev. Code § 3721.24 (Count I)4 and a claim in the alternative for wrongful termination in violation of public policy (Count II).”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3721.24(C) — 2 cases
Hulsmeyer v. Hospice of Sw. Ohio, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2014 Ohio 5511 (Ohio 2014). “employee or other person used to perform work or services who reports or indicates an intention to report suspected abuse or neglect of a long-term- care-facility or residential-care-facility resident is not required to report or indicate an intent to report the suspected abuse…”
Dolan v. St. Mary's Mem'l Home, 794 N.E.2d 716 (Ohio Ct. App. 2003). “Her remedy lies in an action for retaliatory discharge pursuant to R.C. 3721.24. {¶ 18} Dolan has appealed the trial court’s decision granting summary judgment against her on the fifth count of her complaint.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.