[Cite as Lanier v. Univ. of Akron, 2012-Ohio-3676.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

LINDA LANIER 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

THE UNIVERSITY OF AKRON 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2010-04301 

Judge Clark B. Weaver Sr. 

ENTRY GRANTING DEFENDANT’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT

{¶ 1} On December 19, 2011, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment 

pursuant to Civ.R. 56(B). On February 8, 2012, plaintiff filed a response with leave of 

court. Defendant’s February 10, 2012 motion for leave to file a reply is DENIED as 

moot. A non-oral hearing was conducted in this case upon defendant’s motion pursuant 

to L.C.C.R. 4(D). 

{¶ 2} Civ.R. 56(C) states, in part, as follows: 

{¶ 3} “Summary judgment shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, 

depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits, transcripts of 

evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any, timely filed in the action, show that 

there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. No evidence or stipulation may be considered except as 

stated in this rule. A summary judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from 

the evidence or stipulation, and only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable 

minds can come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party 

against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to 

have the evidence or stipulation construed most strongly in the party’s favor.” See also 
Case No. 2010-04301 - 2 - ENTRY

Gilbert v. Summit Cty., 104 Ohio St.3d 660, 2004-Ohio-7108, citing Temple v. Wean 

United, Inc. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 317. 

{¶ 4} Plaintiff was employed by defendant in 2001 as an Associate Director of 

Admissions. In 2005, plaintiff took a position as Coordinator of the Education Talent 

Search (ETS) in the Academic Achievement Program. As coordinator, plaintiff’s 

compensation was funded by a federal grant and the terms of her employment were 

governed by a series of one year contracts, renewable at the end of each fiscal year. 

{¶ 5} In December 2008, plaintiff was informed by her immediate supervisor, 

Coleen Curry, that her contract would not be renewed beyond June 30, 2009. Plaintiff 

appealed her non-renewal pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 3359-22-01. A grievance 

committee subsequently overturned the decision. However, following a review by the 

Vice President of Student Affairs, plaintiff’s non-renewal was upheld. Plaintiff was paid 

through June 30, 2009, her last day of employment with defendant. 

{¶ 6} Plaintiff has alleged breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional 

distress, and invasion of privacy. Plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is based upon 

her assertion that her work was of high quality, as evidenced by her most recent 

performance review, and that the decision to not renew her employment was without 

just cause. Defendant argues that plaintiff’s employment agreement did not require just 

cause for non-renewal and, in the alternative, that the decision to allow her contract to 

expire was motivated by conflicts between plaintiff and her co-workers and 

supervisor(s). 

{¶ 7} There is no evidence that plaintiff’s employment agreement required just 

cause for non-renewal. Although plaintiff has a legal right to file a grievance of the 

decision pursuant to Ohio Adm.Code 3359-22-01, such decisions will be overturned at 

the administrative level only where it is either arbitrary or capricious. As noted above, 

the decision not to renew plaintiff’s contract was ultimately upheld by defendant’s Vice 

President. 
Case No. 2010-04301 - 3 - ENTRY

{¶ 8} Plaintiff claims that her employment was non-renewed because of her 

decision to support a co-worker whom plaintiff felt had been wrongfully denied an 

opportunity to receive additional off-site training. Plaintiff maintains that her allegedly 

poor treatment of co-workers had nothing to do with the decision; that it was her 

decision to “go over [Curry’s] head” that was the real reason for non-renewal. However, 

even if the court were to accept plaintiff’s testimony as fact, such testimony does not 

support an actionable breach of the employment agreement. Even though the stated 

reasons for non-renewal may not have been the true reasons, the true reasons are not 

contrary to law. Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100. 

{¶ 9} Accordingly, there are no material factual disputes which need to be 

resolved with regard to plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract, and defendant is entitled 

to judgment as a matter of law as to that claim. 

{¶ 10} Plaintiff’s claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is premised 

upon plaintiff’s contention that she suffered emotional distress as a result of the 

treatment she received from defendant when she was informed of the non-renewal on 

December 16, 2008. However, plaintiff’s own deposition testimony belies her claim. 

{¶ 11} According to plaintiff’s deposition testimony, she arrived at Curry’s office at 

10:00 a.m on December 16, 2008, for a regularly scheduled meeting. Both Curry and 

Oletha Thompson, Curry’s supervisor, were seated in the office with one of defendant’s 

police officers either in the room or just outside the door. Plaintiff was handed a letter 

informing her of non-renewal. After she read the letter, plaintiff asked “Why?” and she 

was told that defendant was going in a different direction. 

{¶ 12} Although plaintiff testified that she began to cry when she learned of her 

non-renewal, she stated that defendant’s police officer simply escorted her from the 

meeting back to her office, stayed with her as she gathered some of her personal 

belongings, and escorted her to her vehicle. 

{¶ 13} Accepting plaintiff’s testimony as true, the court finds that there is 

absolutely nothing about the conduct of defendant during this incident that could be 
Case No. 2010-04301 - 4 - ENTRY

reasonably characterized as “extreme and outrageous” as the term is used in the 

common law. See Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369. Accordingly, 

there are no issues of fact to be determined. 

{¶ 14} Plaintiff’s claim of invasion of privacy is based upon her contention that her 

password protections were removed from her office computer following the December 

16, 2008 meeting and that the information stored therein was accessible to other 

employees. 

{¶ 15} However, during her deposition, plaintiff was unable to recall any 

information of a personal and private nature which might have been stored on the 

computer. Although plaintiff contends that employee reviews she authored were 

accessible, she has not alleged that such reviews contain either a clearly private fact 

about her or other matter truly of private concern. Housh v. Peth (1956), 165 Ohio St. 

35. Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to produce evidence to support her claim. See id. 

{¶ 16} For the foregoing reasons, and construing the evidence in plaintiff’s favor, 

there are no genuine issues of material fact and defendant is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law. Accordingly, defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED and 

judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff. 

The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon 

the journal. 

 

 _____________________________________ 

 CLARK B. WEAVER SR. 

 Judge 

cc: 

 
Case No. 2010-04301 - 5 - ENTRY

Emily M. Simmons 

Velda K. Hofacker

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Robert A. Pecchio 

2305 East Aurora Road, Suite A-1 

Twinsburg, Ohio 44087-1940 

006 

Filed March 2, 2012 

To S.C. reporter August 15, 2012