Mezey v. Ohio Dev. Servs. Agency
| Decision Date | 20 September 2016 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 2015-00110 |
| Citation | 2016 Ohio 7236 |
| Parties | GAIL MEZEY Plaintiff v. OHIO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AGENCY Defendant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Claims |
{¶1} Plaintiff brings this action alleging promissory estoppel and wrongful termination in violation of public policy.1
{¶2} Plaintiff was employed by defendant Ohio Development Services Agency (DSA), formerly known as the Ohio Department of Development (ODD). Prior to her employment with defendant, plaintiff had worked in the film industry for many years, including work with the Columbus Film Commission, where she interacted with the Ohio Film Bureau, which was later known as the Ohio Film Office. In March 2011, plaintiff was appointed to a part-time, intermittent administrative staff position with defendant's Travel and Tourism Division at a pay rate of $20 per hour. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 3.) Plaintiff testified that her initial duties involved answering phone calls and email regarding the Ohio Motion Picture Tax Credit (OMPTC), a state program which issued tax credits to encourage media production and projects in Ohio. Plaintiff stated that when she began her employment with defendant, the Film Bureau office was understaffed because both the manager and coordinator had recently left the office following a change in administration. According to plaintiff, over time, her duties became more substantive.
{¶3} During her employment with defendant, plaintiff reported to nine different supervisors as the Film Office was reorganized among changing administrations and transferred to various divisions within ODD, including Travel and Tourism and the Small Business Investment divisions. Plaintiff testified that she accomplished many of the duties that were previously performed by full-time employees, eventually working up to 40 hours each week from approximately May to September 2011, to help respond to an audit of the tax credit program. According to plaintiff, Chris Magill, her supervisor at that time, was also busy and asked her to work on a full-time basis. Among other projects, plaintiff updated the OMPTC database that Magill had developed. About the time Magill left in July 2011, plaintiff became more involved with the OMPTC program. On September 7, 2011, plaintiff sent an email to Jerry Good, her supervisor at the time, to confirm that she had been directed not to exceed 32 hours per week. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.) Plaintiff testified that she had responsibility for reviewing tax credit applications, communicating with the applicants, and preparing the applications which she presented to the OMPTC committee for approval. Plaintiff was a voting member of the committee.
{¶4} Pat Barker was employed by DSA from October 2010 to October 2013 and initially served as the Assistant Director of Tourism before she was promoted to Interim Director of Tourism in June 2011. Barker testified that she was plaintiff's direct supervisor during two periods and she also worked with plaintiff when Barker served as a member of the OMPTC committee. Barker described plaintiff as a "very professional" employee who was busy with her job duties. According to Barker, plaintiff maintained defendant's website, answered numerous telephone inquiries and met often with film producers and directors, serving as a liaison for film-related resources in Ohio.
{¶5} Plaintiff testified that she frequently met with her supervisors to discuss her work. Plaintiff stated that she submitted periodic reports of her activities and projects to Barker and her other supervisors. Both plaintiff and Barker testified that all DSA employees electronically submitted their work time to a supervisor for approval and that they were never informed of any concern by management regarding plaintiff's work hours.
{¶6} Plaintiff testified that she had discussions with her supervisors about her increased job duties and she questioned both her status as an intermittent employee and her salary. Plaintiff believed that her position should have been classified as a full-time, permanent position and that she should have received a higher salary with benefits, including paid vacations, health insurance, and retirement contributions. Plaintiff related that several of her supervisors and upper-level managers informed her that they were "working on" a permanent appointment for her and they urged her to "hang on." Plaintiff testified that during the discussions about her position, both David Zak, the chief of the Business Services Division and Darryl Hennessey, the assistant chief, asked her to draft a "white paper" which outlined a plan to increase the fee for a film tax credit application as a means to fund, among other things, a permanent, full-time position for plaintiff. On January 4, 2012, plaintiff sent her first draft of the plan to Zak. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 25.) On June 7, 2012, plaintiff forwarded to both Hennessy and the manager of tax incentives a draft of proposed changes to the Ohio Administrative Code to implement the application fee increase. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 27.)
{¶7} Plaintiff testified that on several occasions, she was asked to draft a position description for her job. On August 31, 2011, plaintiff was presented with the position description for the prior Film Office Coordinator, and she informed Jerry Good, her supervisor at the time, that her current duties were "a meld" of the previous positions of Film Office Coordinator and Film Office Director. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 20.) Barker testified that DSA Director David Goodman requested a position description for each employee and, in March 2013, Barker asked plaintiff to prepare her position description. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff provided Barker with a position description for the "Ohio Film Office Manager." (Plaintiff's Exhibit 53.) In June 2013, Lynn Tolan, DSA's new Chief of Communications and Policy, directed the human resources department (HR) to conduct an audit of the positions under her direction, including plaintiff's position. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 22.) HR provided a job audit questionnaire for the "Ohio Film Office Coordinator/Manager" position, which plaintiff completed.
{¶8} In June 2013, plaintiff was still classified as an intermittent, part-time employee when she consulted with an attorney regarding her employment status. On June 11, 2013, plaintiff's attorney sent a demand letter to Director Goodman which specifically requested an immediate full-time appointment as the Ohio Film Office Manager, with "paid back pay and benefits." (Plaintiff's Exhibit 38.) Plaintiff testified that, after she did not receive a response to the letter, she contacted Goodman's office and Wendy Jordan, Goodman's secretary, informed her that the letter had been received. Plaintiff stated that she did not speak to anyone other than Jordan about the letter her attorney had sent to Goodman, however, plaintiff testified that she perceived "a bit of a chilly reception" from DSA leadership thereafter.
{¶9} On June 20, 2013, Tolan responded to plaintiff's email regarding her work hours, wherein Tolan reminded plaintiff that she was a part-time intermittent employee and that Tolan did not expect her to work 40 hours a week. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 39.) On July 3, 2013, Tolan directed plaintiff to "shoot for a target of 20 hours a week" which was consistent with working up to 1000 hours a year as an intermittent employee. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 42.) Plaintiff testified that she complied with Tolan's direction, but she related that it was difficult to perform her usual job duties as a part-time employee. On July 11, 2013, plaintiff's counsel sent a second letter to Director Goodman which reiterated the demand to appoint plaintiff to a full-time position with back pay and benefits. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 45.) The letter also characterized Tolan's instruction to work approximately 19 hours a week as apparent retaliation for the initial letter to Goodman.
{¶10} According to plaintiff, by August 2013, there was some uncertainty about the focus of the work of the Ohio Film Office. On August 19, 2013, plaintiff sent Tolan an email, acknowledging that she understood "changes [were] afoot" but that she was "unclear just what the parameters are" for the office. (Plaintiff's Exhibits 47 and 48.) In her email, plaintiff sought Tolan's direction on how she "would like this office to proceed" regarding a response to an inquiry from a film producer. Tolan directed plaintiff to provide information about film tax credits and to let her know if any assistance beyond tax credits was requested. On August 27, 2013, plaintiff attended a meeting with Tolan where she had intended to discuss her job duties and hours. When plaintiff arrived for the meeting, she was met by an HR representative and, soon thereafter, Tolan informed her that her position was being terminated. Plaintiff testified that Tolan did not provide a reason for the termination at that time.
{¶11} As a general rule, the common law doctrine of employment-at-will governs employment relationships in Ohio. Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, 96 Ohio St.3d 240, 2002-Ohio-3994. In an at-will employment relationship, either an employer or an employee may legally terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason. Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100, 103 (1985). The public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine "is not limited to public policy expressed by the General Assembly in the form of statutory enactments" but "may [also] be discerned by the Ohio judiciary based on sources such as the Constitutions of Ohio and the United States, legislation, administrative rules and regulations, and the common law." Painter v. Graley, 70 Ohio St.3d 377, 383-384 (1994). There is no question, that plaintiff's appointment could be terminated "at any time," that she served at the pleasure of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial