Opinion ID: 763119
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio's public policy

Text: 48 Godfredson also claims that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of Ohio's public policy prohibiting termination on the basis of age. The evolving law of public policy torts in Ohio was recently clarified by the Ohio Supreme Court in Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134, 677 N.E.2d 308 (1997). Kulch sets forth the following four elements of the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy under Ohio law: 49 1. That [a] 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). 50 2. That dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element). 51 3. The plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy (the causation element). 52 4. The employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal (the overriding justification element). 53 Id. at 321 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted) (brackets and emphasis in original). 54 Even assuming that Godfredson can satisfy the first three elements of this tort, he cannot satisfy the final element. As previously discussed in Part B.4. above, Godfredson failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding his claim that Hess & Clark's legitimate business justification for his dismissal--the reduction in force--was pretextual. In addition, Godfredson acknowledges in his appellate brief that the success of his public policy claim is contingent upon the success of his ADEA claim. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment as to his claim of wrongful discharge in violation of Ohio's public policy. 55