Opinion ID: 768737
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Wrongful Discharge Claim

Text: 30 Finally, Plant argues that Morton's actions constitute wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Ohio law. See Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc., 551 N.E.2d 981, 981-82 syllabus para. 2 (Ohio 1990). This claim is apparently dependent upon Plant's § 4112.02 claim, since he points to § 4112.02 as embodying the public policy that was violated by his discharge. The district court found that in order to succeed on a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the policy embodied in § 4112.02, Plant must be able to meet the requirements for showing a violation of § 4112.02. 31 We do not believe that Plant was required to show all the elements of a violation of § 4112.02 in order to succeed on a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy. In Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1008 (1997), the Supreme Court of Ohio held that the plaintiff's claim for wrongful discharge in violation of the state whistleblower statute would succeed only so long as he could show that he had fully complied with the requirements of the whistleblower statute itself, see id. at 310 syllabus para. 3. However, the court emphasized that its reasons for so holding depended on its understanding of the legislature's intent in enacting the whistleblower statute; the court did not claim to generalize to other public policies or other statutes. See id. at 322-23. Generally, in order to succeed on a wrongful discharge claim, the plaintiff must show only that a clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law; that dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy; that [t]he plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy; and that [t]he employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal. Id. at 321 (quoting Painter v. Graley, 639 N.E.2d 51, 57 n.8 (Ohio 1994)). 32 Nonetheless, the district court reached the correct conclusion with respect to Plant's wrongful discharge claim. As we have noted, Plant has not come forward with sufficient evidence to show that he qualifies as disabled within the meaning of § 4112.02 or the ADA. Although Plant is not required to prove all the elements of an ADA claim or a § 4112.02 claim in order to succeed on a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, we believe that unless Plantcan show that he is a member of the class of people who are the intended beneficiaries of those statutes, he cannot show that dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in [Plant's] dismissal would jeopardize the public policy embodied in those statutes. Therefore, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment to Morton on the wrongful discharge claim.