Brunecz v. Houdaille Industries, Inc.
Decision Date | 21 November 1983 |
Citation | 468 N.E.2d 370,13 Ohio App.3d 106,13 OBR 123 |
Parties | , 13 O.B.R. 123 BRUNECZ, Appellant, v. HOUDAILLE INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellee. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Civ.R. 39(A)(2) does not place a time limit on the filing of a motion to strike a jury demand.
2. Relief under R.C. 4123.90 is equitable in nature and there is no right to a jury in such an action.
Seymour Gross, Cleveland, for appellant.
Donald Wall and Andrew S. Hoffman, Cleveland, for appellee.
Plaintiff-appellant, Thomas Brunecz, on August 7, 1980 brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, against defendant-appellee, Houdaille Industries, Inc., for wrongful discharge under R.C. 4123.90.
Plaintiff alleged that he was injured at his place of employment, and that defendant wrongfully discharged him because he filed a claim for compensation with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation. Plaintiff demanded reinstatement, back pay and reasonable attorney fees. He also made a demand for a jury trial. After an answer was filed by defendant, plaintiff moved for leave to amend his complaint, which was granted. The amendment deleted from the prayer the request for reinstatement. Defendant again answered with a general denial.
After a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant was overruled, the trial court referred the claim of plaintiff to arbitration. The board of arbitrators found for plaintiff in the sum of $1838, plus attorney fees. Defendant appealed to the trial court for a hearing de novo. Defendant also moved to strike the plaintiff's jury demand, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(F) and 39(A)(2), on October 15, 1982. Defendant asserted that no jury trial right exists where a claim pursuant to R.C. 4123.90 is made. Plaintiff opposed said motion on the basis that the motion to strike was made out of rule and, thereby, defendant waived any objection to plaintiff's request for a jury trial, and that since the complaint was for money damages only, a jury trial existed under R.C. 2311.04. The trial was conducted without a jury and the trial court found for defendant.
Appellant appeals citing as error the trial court's granting of the motion to strike appellant's demand for a jury trial. Civ.R. 39(A) provides in part:
* * * "(Emphasis added.)
Civ.R. 39(A)(2) does not place a time limit on the filing of a motion to strike a jury demand. Appellee filed its motion to strike prior to trial and the right to jury trial was briefed by both parties. There was no waiver of appellee's right to raise an objection to the jury demand by its failure to raise the objection in its answer. Civ.R. 12(H) does not control, as this issue is not in the nature of a defense.
Appellant brought his action against appellee for wrongful discharge under R.C. 4123.90 which reads in pertinent part:
* * * "(Emphasis added.)
R.C. 4123.519, which governs appeals to the court of common pleas in workers' compensation cases, makes specific reference to the claimant's right to a jury trial:
There is a conspicuous absence of any reference to a jury trial in R.C. 4123.90 because the remedy provided is essentially equitable in nature, i.e., reinstatement. The back pay is merely a matter of arithmetic computation and ancillary to restoration of the claimant's job.
While we can find no Ohio case wherein a court has addressed the issue of a right to a jury trial in an R.C. 4123.90 action, federal case law has clearly indicated that employer discrimination claims brought under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which like R.C. 4123.90 limits relief to reinstatement and back pay, are clearly equitable in nature and that no right to a jury trial exists. For example, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals noted:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Eysoldt v. Proscan Imaging
...Cleveland v. Lancaster, 2nd Dist. No. 02CA0123, 2003-Ohio-4976, 2003 WL 22149592, ¶ 11–14. FN25. Brunecz v. Houdaille Indus., Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 106, 107, 13 OBR 123, 468 N.E.2d 370. 26. See Stevenson v. Prettyman, 193 Ohio App.3d 234, 2011-Ohio-718, 951 N.E.2d 794, ¶ 13; Meyer v. ......
-
South v. Toledo Edison Co.
...Co. (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 198, 203, 15 O.O.3d 317, 320, 401 N.E.2d 462, 466. Cf., also, Brunecz v. Houdaille Industries, Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 106, 107, 13 OBR 123, 125, 468 N.E.2d 370, 372. We determine, therefore, that appellant was not entitled to a jury trial, and the trial court......
-
Wallace v. Milliken & Co.
...remedy). We therefore hold that an action brought pursuant to Section 41-1-80 is an equitable action. Brunecz v. Houdaille Industries, Inc., 13 Ohio App. 3d 106, 468 N.E.2d 370 (1983); see Kofoid v. Woodard Hotels, Inc., 78 Or.App. 283, 716 P.2d 771 (1986) (a statutory action for employment......
-
Hoops v. United Telephone Co. of Ohio
...Co. (1978), 61 Ohio App.2d 198, 203, 15 O.O.3d 317, 320, 401 N.E.2d 462, 466. Cf., also, Brunecz v. Houdaille Industries, Inc. (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 106, 107, 13 OBR 123, 125, 468 N.E.2d 370, 372." Here, contrary to the arguments of the appellant, the first count of the second amended comp......