859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1988), 87-4046, Scheid v. Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc.

Docket Nº:87-4046.
Citation:859 F.2d 434
Party Name:, 12 Fed.R.Serv.3d 647, 3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1726 Vivian J. SCHEID, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FANNY FARMER CANDY SHOPS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.
Case Date:October 18, 1988
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 434

859 F.2d 434 (6th Cir. 1988)

, 12 Fed.R.Serv.3d 647,

3 Indiv.Empl.Rts.Cas. 1726

Vivian J. SCHEID, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

FANNY FARMER CANDY SHOPS, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 87-4046.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

October 18, 1988

Submitted Aug. 16, 1988.

Page 435

Damian J. Vercillo Henderson, Harpster, Vanosdall & Vercillo, Ashland, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

Rolf H. Scheidel, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Toledo, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.

Before JONES and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and HULL, District Judge. [*]

RYAN, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff Vivian J. Scheid appeals the district court's order granting defendant Fanny Farmer Candy Shops, Inc.'s, motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss plaintiff's age discrimination and breach of contract claims in this diversity action for wrongful discharge. We affirm the dismissal of plaintiff's age discrimination claim, but because we hold that the pleadings for plaintiff's breach of contract claim satisfy the pleading requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8, we reverse the dismissal of plaintiff's contract claim.

Scheid was employed by Fanny Farmer at its Norfolk, Ohio plant from September 1963 until her discharge in July 1986. From 1963 until late 1972 or early 1973 she was an hourly employee represented by a union, and the conditions of her employment were governed by collective bargaining agreement. Subsequently, Scheid was promoted to supervisor of the enrober pack department. She held this position until 1983 when she was laterally transferred to another supervisory position, receiving department supervisor, which she held until her discharge. Scheid never had a written employment contract with Fanny Farmer.

In June 1986, Fanny Farmer announced that due to adverse economic conditions it would eliminate two supervisory positions. The company offered an incentive severance plan to induce two voluntary terminations;

Page 436

however, only one supervisor accepted. In July 1986, Fanny Farmer discharged Scheid, aged forty-four, and shifted her responsibilities to two other supervisors, aged forty-seven and fifty-nine.

In November 1986, Scheid filed a complaint against Fanny Farmer in Ohio state court, alleging the following causes of action: age discrimination under Ohio Rev.Code Sec. 4101.17, breach of implied contract, breach of duty of fair dealing, malicious discharge of employment, and negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress. After removing to federal court, defendant, on October 2, 1987, filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) 1 or, in the alternative, for summary judgment under Rule 56. Attached to defendant's motion were excerpts of Scheid's deposition, an affidavit of defendant's plant personnel manager, and a copy of defendant's personnel manual. On October 21, 1987, the district court entered an order granting defendant's motion to dismiss. Scheid filed timely notice of appeal from the order and challenges the dismissal of her age discrimination and contract claims.

I.

We first address defendant's contention that this court should decide this appeal on summary judgment grounds under Rule 56. When a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP