Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem. Hosp., C-900506
Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM |
Citation | 599 N.E.2d 403,75 Ohio App.3d 334 |
Parties | BARTLETT et al., Appellants, v. DANIEL DRAKE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., Appellees; Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, Defendant. |
Docket Number | No. C-900506,C-900506 |
Decision Date | 07 August 1991 |
Page 334
v.
DANIEL DRAKE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL et al., Appellees; Hamilton County Board of Commissioners, Defendant.
[599 N.E.2d 405]
Page 336
Jerald E. Condit, Cincinnati, for appellants.Dinsmore & Shohl, Michael W. Hawkins and Kathleen Kernan Bedree, Cincinnati, for appellees.
Page 337
PER CURIAM.
The appellants, Gwen and Charles Bartlett, were both employed at defendant-appellee Daniel Drake Memorial Hospital ("Drake Hospital") when the incident giving rise to the lawsuit under review in this appeal occurred.
On March 13, 1986, Gwen was working at Drake Hospital as a nursing technician. As Gwen attempted to move a patient with a mechanical device known as a "Hoyer lift," the patient dropped to the floor and sustained serious head injuries. According to Drake Hospital policy, operation of the lift required two persons. Gwen, however, had used the device without assistance.
As a result of this incident, Gwen was suspended from employment without pay. A predisciplinary conference was conducted, and based upon the testimony adduced, the hearing officer recommended suspending Gwen for five days and transferring her to a department where she would not be in direct contact with patients. The hospital's chief executive officer adopted the recommendation and transferred Gwen to a housekeeping position. 1 Pursuant to hospital policy Gwen appealed to arbitration and the appeal was ultimately denied. 2
In August 1986, appellants filed a fourteen-count complaint against the named defendants, alleging, inter alia, defamation, breach of contract, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and loss of companionship. In November 1986 Gwen resigned from employment at Drake Hospital, and in April 1987, appellants added a fifteenth claim against the defendants, which alleged that Gwen was constructively discharged from employment at Drake Hospital due to intolerable working conditions. Defendants Drake Hospital, Jan C. Taylor, Delores McCary, Robert Tamm and the Board of Trustees of Drake Hospital successfully moved for summary judgment on all fifteen claims. Because the allegations of liability against the remaining defendants, the members of the Board of Hamilton County Commissioners, were derivative in nature, judgment was likewise rendered in their favor. Appellants now present four assignments of error for our review.
The first assignment contends that the trial court should not have granted summary judgment to the appellees on the claim alleging breach of contract by constructive discharge. Appellants maintain that Drake Hospital's personnel manual constituted an implied employment contract which created certain
Page 338
"termination rights." Appellants further contend that the alleged contract was breached when Drake Hospital "applied techniques of harassment for purposes of coercing [Gwen] into an involuntary resignation." This assignment is not well taken.It is undisputed that Gwen was classified as an employee at will where, unless otherwise agreed, either party may terminate the employment relationship for any reason not contrary to law. Fawcett v. C.G. Murphy & Co. (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 245, 75 O.O.2d 291, 348 N.E.2d 144. In Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100, 19 OBR 261, 483 N.E.2d 150, the Ohio Supreme Court established two narrow exceptions to an employer's ability to discharge employees freely under employment-at-will contracts. These two [599 N.E.2d 406] exceptions involve the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the creation of an implied contract. Undisturbed by the holding in Mers is the generally accepted conclusion that items such as employer handbooks, company policy or oral representations do not create employee rights which alter the "termination for any reason" terms for discharge under the at-will situation unless the parties have a "meeting of the minds" indicating that such items are to be considered valid contracts altering the terms for discharge. Turner v. SPS Technologies, Inc. (June 4, 1987), Cuyahoga App. No. 51945, unreported, 1987 WL 11967. While personnel manuals may be important in establishing the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Golem v. Village of Put-in-Bay, No. 3:00CV7740.
...manual to alter an at-will employment relationship, there must be a meeting of the minds. Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem'l Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 338, 599 N.E.2d 403 (1991) ("While personnel manuals may be important in establishing the terms and conditions of employment, absent the n......
-
Skalka v. Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corp., Nos. 97-3493
...N.E.2d 449, 452 (Ohio Ct.App.), cause dismissed, 66 Ohio St.3d 1478, 612 N.E.2d 329 (Ohio 1993); Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem'l Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 599 N.E.2d 403, 406 (Ohio Ct.App.1991). Similarly, only a specific promise of job security--not generalized praise of an employee's perf......
-
Alexander v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll., No. 14AP–798.
...items are to be considered valid contracts altering the terms for discharge.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem. Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 338, 599 N.E.2d 403 (1st Dist.1991). Without mutual assent of the parties, a policy manual is merely a unilateral statement of rules and......
-
Sagonowsky v. The Andersons, Inc., 2005 Ohio 326 (OH 1/28/2005), Court of Appeals No. L-03-1168.
...items are to be considered valid contracts altering the terms for discharge." Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Memorial Hospital (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 338, citing Turner v. SPS Technologies, Inc. (June 4, 1987), 8th Dist. No. 51945. See also, Balbach v. Akron Metro. Hous. Auth. (1987), 9......
-
Golem v. Village of Put-in-Bay, 3:00CV7740.
...manual to alter an at-will employment relationship, there must be a meeting of the minds. Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem'l Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 338, 599 N.E.2d 403 (1991) ("While personnel manuals may be important in establishing the terms and conditions of employment, absent the necess......
-
Hensley v. Wester Chester Twp., 1:21cv373
...of Indian Head, Inc., 4 Ohio St.3d 163, 165, 166, 447 N.E.2d 1290, 1293 (Ohio 1983)); see also Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem. Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 340, 599 N.E.2d 403, 407 (Ohio 1991) (“In order to successfully assert a defamation claim against one whose statements are entitled to a qu......
-
Skalka v. Fernald Environmental Restoration Management Corp., s. 97-3493
...N.E.2d 449, 452 (Ohio Ct.App.), cause dismissed, 66 Ohio St.3d 1478, 612 N.E.2d 329 (Ohio 1993); Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem'l Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 599 N.E.2d 403, 406 (Ohio Ct.App.1991). Similarly, only a specific promise of job security--not generalized praise of an employee's perf......
-
Alexander v. Columbus State Cmty. Coll., 14AP–798.
...items are to be considered valid contracts altering the terms for discharge.” Id. at ¶ 22, citing Bartlett v. Daniel Drake Mem. Hosp., 75 Ohio App.3d 334, 338, 599 N.E.2d 403 (1st Dist.1991). Without mutual assent of the parties, a policy manual is merely a unilateral statement of rules and......