[Cite as State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986.] 

THE STATE EX REL. JELINEK, APPELLANT, v. SCHNEIDER, JUDGE, ET AL.,

APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 

127 Ohio St.3d 332, 2010-Ohio-5986.] 

Court of appeals’ judgment denying petition for writs of mandamus, procedendo, 

and prohibition affirmed — Court of common pleas judge did not patently 

disregard the court of appeals’ mandate on remand.

(No. 2010-0824 — Submitted November 16, 2010 — Decided 

December 14, 2010.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 

No. 08AP-957, 2010-Ohio-1220. 

__________________ 

BROWN, C.J.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the court of appeals 

denying a petition for writs of mandamus, procedendo, and prohibition to compel 

appellees Franklin County Court of Common Pleas and Judge Charles A. 

Schneider to carry out the court of appeals’ mandate in a previous appeal by 

allowing appellant to allege constructive discharge in conducting a new trial on an 

age-discrimination claim. Because the common pleas court and Judge Schneider 

did not patently and unambiguously disregard the court of appeals’ mandate, we 

affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the requested extraordinary 

relief. 

Facts

{¶ 2} In September 1999, appellant, David A. Jelinek, filed a complaint 

in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against appellee Abbott 

Laboratories, Ross Products Division (“Abbott”) and several current and former 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2 

Abbott employees, including appellees Karl V. Insani and Gregory A. Lindberg. 

Jelinek alleged that “[a]fter 30 years in various sales capacities with Ross 

Laboratories and the Ross Products Division of Abbott Laboratories, [he] was 

retaliated against, demoted and constructively terminated by defendants on the 

basis of his age.” Jelinek sought damages. After the common pleas court granted 

summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of his claims, he appealed. 

{¶ 3} In his assignments of error, Jelinek claimed that the trial court had 

erred in granting summary judgment on the claims of age discrimination, 

promissory estoppel, constructive discharge, retaliation, and wrongful discharge 

in violation of public policy. In September 2001, the Court of Appeals for 

Franklin County reversed the judgment of the trial court on the claims of age 

discrimination, promissory estoppel, and constructive discharge and remanded the 

cause to that court for further proceedings. Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories (Sept. 

13, 2001), Franklin App. No. 01AP-217, 2001 WL 1045534 (“Jelinek I”). The 

court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court on the remaining claims. 

Id. 

{¶ 4} On remand, the matter proceeded to a jury trial before Judge John 

P. Bessey, and the jury returned a verdict against Abbott, Insani, and Lindberg on 

the age-discrimination claim, awarding Jelinek $700,000 in compensatory 

damages for emotional distress, $25,000,000 in punitive damages, and attorney 

fees. Although the jury found in favor of Jelinek on his age-discrimination claim 

based on his job transfer to Lake County, Indiana, the jury answered in an 

interrogatory that he did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that “the 

transfer resulted in working conditions that were so intolerable that a reasonable 

person would have been compelled to resign from his employment with Abbott.” 

Thus, the jury found in favor of the defendants on Jelinek’s claims for 

constructive discharge. The defendants also prevailed on Jelinek’s promissoryestoppel claim. 
January Term, 2010 

3

{¶ 5} On June 23, 2003, Judge Bessey entered a judgment 

notwithstanding the verdict (“JNOV”) in favor of the defendants and against 

Jelinek on his age-discrimination claim. In the alternative, the judge ordered that 

“defendants’ motion for new trial on plaintiff’s claim of age discrimination is 

hereby conditionally granted should the JNOV in favor of Abbott Laboratories, 

Karl V. Insani or Gregory A. Lindberg be vacated or reversed on appeal.” In the 

same judgment entry, Judge Bessey entered judgment in favor of the defendants 

on Jelinek’s promissory-estoppel and constructive-discharge claims. 

{¶ 6} Jelinek appealed, and the defendants cross-appealed. Jelinek 

raised several assignments of error, including one relating to his constructivedischarge claim: 

{¶ 7} “IV. The trial court erred in excluding certain evidence related to 

plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim which resulted in an adverse jury verdict 

on plaintiff’s constructive discharge claim.” 

{¶ 8} In October 2005, the court of appeals reversed the judgment of the 

common pleas court insofar as the court granted the defendants’ motion for 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict on Jelinek’s age-discrimination claim, but it 

affirmed the portion of the judgment conditionally granting the defendants’ 

motion for a new trial on the age-discrimination claim. Jelinek v. Abbott 

Laboratories, 164 Ohio App.3d 607, 2005-Ohio-5696, 843 N.E.2d 807 (“Jelinek 

II”). The court of appeals overruled Jelinek’s assignment of error regarding the 

constructive-discharge claim. 

{¶ 9} Two retrials of Jelinek’s age-discrimination claim ended in 

mistrials, and Judge Bessey recused himself from the case in February 2008. 

Judge Schneider was then assigned to the case. In September 2008, Judge 

Schneider issued a decision stating that “the scope of the new trial is confined to 

the age-discrimination claim and excludes a retrial of the constructive-discharge 

claim, including facts or allegations that relate to that claim.” 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4 

{¶ 10} The next month, Jelinek filed a complaint in the court of appeals 

for writs of mandamus and procedendo to compel the common pleas court and 

Judge Schneider to conduct a new trial on the issue or claim of constructive 

discharge in the context of his age-discrimination claim. Jelinek also sought a 

writ of prohibition to prevent the common pleas court and Judge Schneider from 

disregarding the court of appeals’ mandate in Jelinek II by excluding evidence of 

constructive discharge in the retrial of his age-discrimination claim. Appellees, 

Abbott, Insani, and Lindberg, intervened as additional respondents in the writ 

action. Following the submission of evidence and briefs, the court of appeals 

denied the writs. 

{¶ 11} Jelinek appealed from that judgment, and the cause is now before 

the court as an appeal as of right. 

Legal Analysis

{¶ 12} Extraordinary relief is appropriate to require a lower court to 

comply with and not proceed contrary to the mandate of a superior court. See 

State ex rel. Non-Employees of Chateau Estates Resident Assn. v. Kessler, 107 

Ohio St.3d 197, 2005-Ohio-6182, 837 N.E.2d 778, ¶ 14 (mandamus and 

procedendo); State ex rel. Danziger v. Yarbrough, 114 Ohio St.3d 261, 2007-

Ohio-4009, 871 N.E.2d 593, ¶ 8 (prohibition). This precedent is supported by the 

law-of-the-case doctrine, which “is necessary to ensure consistency of results in a 

case, to avoid endless litigation by settling the issues, and to preserve the structure 

of superior and inferior courts as designed by the Ohio Constitution.” Hopkins v. 

Dyer, 104 Ohio St.3d 461, 2004-Ohio-6769, 820 N.E.2d 329, ¶ 15. “The portion 

of the [law-of-the-case] doctrine generally applied in extraordinary-writ cases 

provides that ‘[a]bsent extraordinary circumstances, such as an intervening 

decision by the Supreme Court, an inferior court has no discretion to disregard the 

mandate of a superior court in a prior appeal in the same case.’ ” State ex rel. 
January Term, 2010 

5

Dannaher v. Crawford (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 391, 394, 678 N.E.2d 549, quoting 

Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1, 11 OBR 1, 462 N.E.2d 410, syllabus. 

{¶ 13} Nevertheless, neither mandamus, nor procedendo, nor prohibition 

will issue if the party seeking extraordinary relief has an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of law. See State ex rel. Mosier v. Fornof, 126 Ohio St.3d 47, 

2010-Ohio-2516, 930 N.E.2d 305, ¶ 2 (mandamus and prohibition); State ex rel. 

Hazel v. Bender, 125 Ohio St.3d 448, 2010-Ohio-2112, 928 N.E.2d 1092, ¶ 1 

(procedendo). “In the absence of a patent and unambiguous lack of jurisdiction, a 

court having general subject-matter jurisdiction can determine its own 

jurisdiction, and a party contesting that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by 

appeal.” State ex rel. Plant v. Cosgrove, 119 Ohio St.3d 264, 2008-Ohio-3838, 

893 N.E.2d 485, ¶ 5. 

{¶ 14} The court of appeals is in the best position to interpret its own 

mandate in Jelinek II and determine whether Judge Schneider violated that 

mandate. See, e.g., State ex rel. Pyle v. Bessey, 112 Ohio St.3d 119, 2006-Ohio6514, 858 N.E.2d 383, ¶ 12. The court of appeals expressly determined that its 

prior mandate in Jelinek II did not order retrial of Jelinek’s constructive-discharge 

theory and that Judge Schneider had “not acted in a manner inconsistent with this 

court’s mandate in Jelinek II.” State ex rel. Jelinek v. Schneider, 10th Dist. No. 

08AP-957, 2010-Ohio-1220, ¶ 15 and 17. Moreover, “the use of extraordinary 

relief to enforce a judgment is not widespread, because of the availability of other 

means of enforcement, e.g., motion for contempt.” Dzina v. Celebrezze, 108 Ohio 

St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14; State ex rel. Obojski v. 

Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 2007-Ohio-2453, 866 N.E.2d 1070, ¶ 16. 

{¶ 15} The common pleas court and Judge Schneider did not patently and 

unambiguously disregard the court of appeals’ mandate in Jelinek II. Jelinek has 

adequate remedies in the ordinary course of law by appeal and by motion for 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6 

contempt to challenge Judge Schneider’s rulings on remand. See Dzina, 108 Ohio 

St.3d 385, 2006-Ohio-1195, 843 N.E.2d 1202, ¶ 14. 

Conclusion

{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly denied 

Jelinek’s request for extraordinary relief in mandamus, procedendo, and 

prohibition. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.1

Judgment affirmed. 

 LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, and CUPP,

JJ., concur. 

 PFEIFER, J., concurs in judgment only. 

__________________ 

 Law Offices of Russell A. Kelm, Russell A. Kelm, and Joanne W. Detrick, 

for appellant. 

 Ron O’Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Patrick J. 

Piccininni, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Franklin County Court 

of Common Pleas and Judge Charles A. Schneider. 

 Winston & Strawn, L.L.P., James F. Hurst, Derek J. Sarafa, and Samantha 

L. Maxfield;2

 and Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Michael G. Long, and 

Lisa Pierce Reisz, for appellees Abbott Laboratories, Ross Products Division, 

Karl V. Insani, and Gregory A. Lindberg. 

______________________ 

 

1. We deny Jelinek’s request for oral argument. This case does not raise any complex factual or 

legal issues, and the parties’ briefs are sufficient for us to resolve the case. State ex rel. Cordray v. 

Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229, 2009-Ohio-4986, 915 N.E.2d 633, ¶ 41. 

2. The motion for admission pro hac vice of James F. Hurst, Derek J. Sarafa, and Samantha L. 

Maxfield by Lisa Pierce Reisz is granted.