Hedrick v. Center for Comprehensive Alcoholism Treatment

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 7 OBR 272,7 Ohio App.3d 211,454 N.E.2d 1343
• Parties: , 99 Lab.Cas. P 55,425, 7 O.B.R. 272 HEDRICK, Appellant, v. CENTER FOR COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOLISM TREATMENT et al., Appellees. *
• Decision Date: 30 June 1982

Page 211

7 Ohio App.3d 211 454 N.E.2d 1343, 99 Lab.Cas. P 55,425, 7 O.B.R. 272 HEDRICK, Appellant,
v.
CENTER FOR COMPREHENSIVE ALCOHOLISM TREATMENT et al., Appellees. ^* Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County. June 30, 1982.

Syllabus by the Court

Page 212

A trial court may not dismiss a cause of action for "wrongful discharge," where the plaintiff-employee's complaint alleges sufficient facts to rebut, for the purposes of overcoming the defendant-employer's motion to dismiss, the general rule that contracts of indefinite duration are terminable at will.

Tobias & Kraus and Paul H. Tobias, Cincinnati, for appellant.

[454 N.E.2d 1345] Dinsmore, Shohl, Coates & Deupree and John M. Kunst, Jr., Cincinnati, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause came on to be heard upon an appeal from the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County.

On January 5, 1981, appellant, Sharon Hedrick, filed a complaint in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas naming as defendants the appellees in this cause: the Center for Comprehensive Alcoholism Treatment ("Center"), the Center's Board of Trustees, its President, and its Executive Director. Appellant alleged in her original complaint that she had been wrongfully discharged from her employment at the Center, that her discharge was effected with specific intent to harm her, that her discharge contravened the public policy of the state of Ohio, and that her discharge constituted a denial of a property right without due process of law. Thereafter, appellant amended her complaint to include claims seeking recovery on the basis of promissory estoppel and defamation of character. She also included in this amendment copies of several documents which allegedly contained various forms and conditions of her employment at the Center.

On May 19, 1981, appellant amended her complaint a second time adding allegations that her discharge violated certain implied-in-fact conditions of her employment and an implied agreement not to discharge her as long as her employment performance was satisfactory. Appellant again included copies of several documents, different from those appended to her first amendment, which allegedly contained terms and conditions of her employment at the Center. As finally amended, appellant's complaint contained seven claims against the appellees; each claim related to appellant's termination as an employee at the Center.

On May 28, 1981, the appellees moved the lower court to dismiss appellant's complaint, as finally amended, on the grounds that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The appellees posited several arguments in support of their motion to dismiss. Prominent among these was the argument that since appellant's employment contract was indefinite in duration it was terminable at either the Center's or the appellant's will. The lower court accepted this argument and, on August 25, 1981, entered judgment dismissing all seven counts of appellant's complaint. The instant appeal derives from that judgment; however, the errors assigned by appellant relate only to the dismissal of the wrongful discharge, promissory estoppel and defamation counts.

Appellant assigns three errors. The first is that the lower court erred in dismissing her claim " * * * for breach of her employment contract"; the second is that the lower court erred in dismissing her claim based upon promissory estoppel; and the third is that the lower court erred in dismissing her claim based upon defamation. In support of each assignment, appellant argues that she alleged sufficient facts to state a claim upon

Page 213

which relief may be granted. We will dispose of these assignments seriatim.

In her claim for breach of contract appellant alleges that she was employed at the Center pursuant to a contract which provided that she would only be terminated for just cause, for maintenance of unsatisfactory work standards, or for serious infractions of the Center's rules. She also alleges that her employment contract entitled her to certain procedural protections including knowledge of the reason for her discharge, a hearing on her discharge before the Center's Executive Director, and the opportunity to present a defense prior to being terminated. Appellant contends further that she was discharged from the Center for reasons unrelated to her work performance and that she was denied the procedural protections listed above.

Appellant appended to her complaint and its amendments numerous documents which [454 N.E.2d 1346] she argues support the allegations summarized above. These documents included the Center's Employee Handbook, various of its policy statements regarding employee disciplinary, discharge and grievance procedures, a Staff Distribution Form, and an Employment Confirmation Form. Appellant argues that these documents support her breach of contract claim because they establish the terms and conditions which the appellees allegedly breached by discharging her.

The constraints within which this court must function upon review of a dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted are well-established. The judgment of a...