Opportunity Consultants, Inc. v. Tugrul
| Decision Date | 22 March 1976 |
| Citation | 354 N.E.2d 698,47 Ohio App.2d 346 |
| Parties | , 1 O.O.3d 403 OPPORTUNITY CONSULTANTS, INC., Appellee, v. TUGRUL, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where an employee informs his employer he is resigning on a specific date in the future, and the employer immediately discharges the employee, solely for this reason, such is not a termination for a failure or fault of the employee.
John H. Engle, for appellee.
Thomas D. Shackleford, Mason, for appellant.
This is an appeal from the Hamilton County Nunicipal Court wherein after a bench trial judgment was rendered for plaintiff, the appellee herein, in the maount of $1,361.34, against defendant, the appellant.
The complaint alleged that defendant entered into a written contract with the plaintiff, an employment agency, agreeing to accept employment with Clow Corporation. The Clow Corporation assumed the fee obligation except in the event defendant failed to remain in the new position for ninety days and left with fault, in which case the fee obligation would revert back to defendant. In the latter instance, defendant agreed to pay plaintiff a fee of $2,025, or the amount refunded the employer, whichever was less.
The defendant has assigned the following error for review:
'The trial court erred in finding that defendant-appellant voluntarily left with fault his employment with Clow Corporaion, thereby placing him within the purview of the penalty provisions of the contract between plaintiff-appellee and defendant-appellant.'
The facts are in dispute as to whether defendant was discharged due to a layoff or due to defendant's giving notice that he was resigning effective October 4, 1972. In any event, Clow Corporation terminated his employment before he had worked ninety days.
The trial court found that defendant stated to his employer, Clow Corporation, that he would be leaving and going to other employment, but that he was going to stay for ninety days. The trial court concluded that the discharge of defendant by Clow Corporation as a result of this statement was a discharge for just cause.
In our opinion, where an employee informs an employer he is resigning at a date in the future and the employer immediately discharges the employee, solely for this reason, it is not a termination for a failure or fault of the employee.
In regards to the agreement between the parties, we hold that the termination in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chelsea Industries, Inc. v. Accuray Leasing Corp., 82-1426
...the party that drew it. Lytle v. Freedom Int'l Carriers, S.A., 6 Cir., 1975, 519 F.2d 129, 135; Opportunity Consultants, Inc. v. Tugrul, 1976, 1 Ohio App.2d 403, 354 N.E.2d 698, 699. These principles would be violated by defendant's construction that the "letter ... merely describes a polic......
-
Gary S. Clough v. Michael J. O'connor
... ... Thus, appellants never even gave ... the O'Connors the opportunity to cure the alleged ... defects ... The ... Opportunity ... Consultants, Inc. v. Tugrul (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 346; ... Cleveland Trust ... ...
-
Joseph L. Thomas v. Goodyear Atomic Corp.
... ... American Druggists' Insurance ... Company v. Equifax, Inc. (S.D. Ohio 1980), 505 F.Supp ... 66, 68 ... Where ... v. Rockefeller (1876), 29 Ohio St. 625, 629; ... Opportunity Consultants, Inc. v. Tugrul (1976), 47 ... Ohio App.2d 346, 348 ... ...
-
Bank One, Cleveland, N.A. v. Mason, 57590
...Discharge prior to the effective date of an employee's resignation is a different matter. In Opportunity Consultants, Inc. v. Tugrul (1976), 47 Ohio App.2d 346, 1 O.O.3d 403, 354 N.E.2d 698, the court held that where an employee informs an employer he is resigning at a date in the future an......