Day v. Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n

• Decision Date: 31 March 2014
• Docket Number: Case No. 1:13cv547.
• Citation: 82 F.Supp.3d 704
• Parties: Terry L. DAY, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio

82 F.Supp.3d 704

Terry L. DAY, Plaintiff

v.NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

Case No. 1:13cv547.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Signed March 31, 2014.

F. Harrison Green, F. Harrison Green Co. LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Basil W. Mangano, Joseph J. Guarino, III, Mangano Law Offices Co., LPA, Cleveland, OH, Ryan Keith Hymore, Mangano Law Offices Co., LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

SUSAN J. DLOTT, Chief Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Butler County Electrical Joint Apprentice and Training Committee's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second, Third, and Fourth Causes of Action. (Doc. 13.) For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROUND

From September of 2010 through March 5, 2012, Plaintiff was employed as an apprentice electrician through the National Electrical Contractors Association, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local # 648, and Butler County Electrical Joint Apprentice and Training Committee. (Doc. 1, Page ID 4.) As a result of an injury sustained prior to his employment, Plaintiff suffers from obstructive bowel syndrome, permanent nerve damage, and hypertension, which Plaintiff claims he disclosed at the time of his hire. (Id. )

Plaintiff indicates that he sought and received accommodations for excused absences relating to his disability during the first year of his training program. (Id. ) Despite the excused absences, Plaintiff claims that he made sufficient progress in the performance of his duties and completed all homework assignments with passing grades. (Id. at Page ID 5.) However, during the second year of his training, Plaintiff claims that he was informed by Defendants that he would not be entitled to any excused absences. (Id. ) Plaintiff attempted to use the Family Medical Leave Act for the purpose of receiving relief from his disability. (Id. ) On March 5, 2012, Defendants informed plaintiff that it was his last day of work, citing his unexcused absences. (Id. ) According to Plaintiff, Defendants made accommodations for other employees who performed duties as apprentice electricians. (Id. )

Based on the above facts, Plaintiff brings five causes of action. In causes of action one and five, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. In his second and third causes of action, Plaintiff brings wrongful termination and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims under Ohio law. In the fourth cause of action, Plaintiff alleges a violation of sections 501 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Defendant Butler County moves to dismiss causes of action two, three and four pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).¹ (Doc. 13.)

II. ANALYSIS

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) allows a party to move to dismiss a complaint for “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). A district court “must read all well-pleaded allegations of the complaint as true.” Weiner v. Klais and Co., Inc., 108 F.3d 86, 88 (6th Cir.1997). However, this tenet is inapplicable to legal conclusions, or legal conclusions couched as factual allegations, which are not entitled to an assumption of truth. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

To withstand a dismissal motion, a complaint “does not need detailed factual allegations,” but it must contain “more than labels and conclusions [or] a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). “[T]he complaint must contain either direct or inferential allegations respecting all material elements to sustain a recovery under some viable legal theory.” Havard v. Wayne Cty., 436 Fed.Appx. 451, 457 (6th Cir.2011) (internal quotation or citation omitted). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955. The Court does not require “heightened fact pleading of specifics, but only enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955. “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

A. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy

In his second cause of action, Plaintiff brings an Ohio tort claim of wrongful termination in violation of public policy. (Doc. 1, Page ID 6.) Plaintiff contends that his termination violates the public policy embodied in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990(ADA). See id. In its motion to dismiss, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claim is foreclosed under Ohio law because the remedies provided by the ADA are sufficient to protect against violations of public policy. (Doc. 13, Page ID 42–43.) In response, Plaintiff concedes that a plaintiff may not sustain a wrongful termination claim where alternative remedies are available, but argues that Defendant's motion to dismiss is premature. According to Plaintiff, the Court should not dismiss his wrongful termination claim until the Court decides whether his claims under the ADA are viable. (Doc. 16, Page ID 56.)

Under Ohio law, a claim of wrongful termination requires a plaintiff to prove the following four elements:

(1) a clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law; (2) in general, dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy; (3) the plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy; and (4) the employer did not have a justifiable legitimate business justification for the dismissal.

Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, 96 Ohio St.3d 240, 773 N.E.2d 526, 529–30 (2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted). With regard to the second element, that dismissing a wrongful termination claim would jeopardize public policy, a plaintiff must also show that there is no other remedy available. As the Ohio Supreme Court has noted:

An analysis of the jeopardy element necessarily involves inquiring into the existence of any alternative means of promoting the particular public policy to be vindicated by a common-law wrongful discharge claim. Where, as here, the sole source of the public policy opposing the discharge is a statute that provides the substantive right and remedies for its breach, the issue of adequacy of remedies becomes a particularly important component of the jeopardy analysis. If the statute that establishes the public policy contains its own remedies, it is less likely that tort liability is necessary to prevent dismissals from interfering with realizing the statutory policy. Simply put, there is no need to recognize a common-law action for wrongful discharge if there already exists a statutory remedy that adequately protects society's interests.

Wiles, 773 N.E.2d at 531 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). See also Carrasco v. NOAMTC Inc., 124 Fed.Appx. 297, 304 (6th Cir.2004).

As both parties acknowledge, “[i]t is well-established that wrongful discharge in violation of state public policy claims fail where other statutes provide adequate protection and remedies.” Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children's Hosp. Med. Center, No. 1:11–cv–917, 2012 WL 6721098, at *4 (S.D.Ohio Dec. 27, 2012). In this case, Plaintiff bases his wrongful termination claim on the allegation that his termination violated the ADA. Because the ADA provides an available remedy to Plaintiff he cannot bring the same claim under Ohio common law. See Carrasco, 124 Fed.Appx. at 304 (“Because Carrasco has a remedy available to him under both Title VII and the OCRA, we find that he cannot have that same claim under Ohio common law”). See also Schirmer v. Enerfab, Inc., No. 1:04–CV–345, 2006 WL 2612894, *13–14 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 8, 2006) (finding barred a public policy claim premised on a violation of the ADA); Barton v. Air Express Intern. USA, Inc., No. 1:06–cv–1885, 2007 WL 851882, at *2 (N.D.Ohio Mar. 19, 2007) (dismissing public policy claim where plaintiff had adequate remedies under the ADA, as well as O.R.C. § 4112 and Title VII); Dillbeck v. Huntington Nat'l Bank, No. 2:03–CV–0689, 2005 WL 1266690, at *7 (S.D.Ohio May 26, 2005) (holding that “[t]he statutory remedies that exist under the ADA and O.R.C. § 4112 are adequate to protect society's interest in discouraging employers from engaging in discrimination and further provide sufficient compensation to the victims of such discrimination”); Kolcun v. Nationwide Ins. Co., No. C2–04–cv–1079, 2006 WL 1447299, at *10 (S.D.Ohio May 24, 2006) (same).

Nevertheless, Plaintiff takes the position that the Court should not find his public policy claim foreclosed before determining the viability of his ADA claim. For support, Plaintiff cites Carrasco, arguing that prior to finding the plaintiff's public policy claims to be barred in that case, the Sixth Circuit first determined that the plaintiff had set forth a prima facie case on his alternate remedies under Title VII and OCRA. While the Sixth Circuit did make such a finding, it did not premise its determination that the plaintiff was foreclosed from bringing a wrongful termination claim on plaintiff's ability to prove a prima facie case under Title VII and OCRA. See Rusnak v. Dollar General Corp., Inc., No. 1:04–cv–313, 2006 WL 2709765, at *9 (S.D.Ohio Sept. 20, 2006) (“Furthermore, it is clear from Carrasco that a public policy claim is barred if there are adequate remedies for the plaintiff under other statutes, not just the statute under which the plaintiff elected to proceed.”); Curry v. Consolidated Coal Co., No. 2:03–cv–1053, 2005 WL 1159410, at *4 (S.D.Ohio May 17, 2005)...