Source: http://www.myemploymentlawyer.com/wiki/Public-Policy-exception-to-At-will-Employment-in-Ohio.htm
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 19:43:38+00:00

Document:
In Greeley v. Miami Valley Maint. Contractors, 49 Ohio St. 3d 228 (Ohio 1990), the Ohio Supreme Court held that "[p]ublic policy warrants an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine when an employee is discharged or disciplined for a reason which is prohibited by statute." As a result, an employee discharged in violation of R.C. § 3113.213(D), which prohibits an employer from discharging or disciplining an employee on the basis of a wage withholding order but does not expressly authorize an employee suit, was allowed to pursue a tort claim as a result of his termination. The Court held that the legislature could not have intended to leave an employee discharged in violation of such a statute without an effective remedy.
That clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law (the clarity element).
That dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element).
The plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy (the causation element).
The employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal (the overriding justification element).
Painter v. Graley, 70 Ohio St. 3d 377 (Ohio 1994), fn. 8.
Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, (2002) 96 Ohio St. 3d 240, 242-246.
Under this test, the availability of some remedy under the FMLA, although incomplete, (e.g., no compensatory or punitive damages are available for a violation), barred a Greeley claim.
This was a major retreat from the expansion of Greeley claims. Earlier, the Ohio Supreme Court had held that Greeley claims are cumulative and that the remedy available in the source of the public policy did not preempt the Greeley claim. Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc. (1997), 78 Ohio St. 3d 134, syllabus 2 and 4; Pytlinski v. Brocar Prods., 94 Ohio St. 3d 77, 79-80 (Ohio , 2002).
Under Wiles, however, a Greeley claim is available only if the remedy related to the source of the public policy is so deficient that employee is deterred from pursuing it.
A common-law tort claim for wrongful discharge based on Ohio’s public policy against age discrimination does not exist, because the remedies in R.C. Chapter 4112 provide complete relief for a statutory claim for age discrimination.
After considering our prior decisions, we conclude that it is unnecessary to recognize a common-law claim when 1) remedy provisions are an essential part of the statutes upon which the plaintiff depends for the public policy claim and 2) when those remedies adequately protect society’s interest by discouraging the wrongful conduct.
Greeley claims are thus not supportable solely by the public policy found in ORC Chapter 4112.
An employee who is terminated from employment while receiving workers' compensation has no common-law cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy underlying R.C. 4123.90, which provides the exclusive remedy for employees claiming termination in violation of rights conferred by the Workers' Compensation Act.

References: v. 
 § 3113
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.