 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Rigby v. Fallsway Equipment Co.11/13/2002
Decision and Journal Entry
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Appellants, Stewart and Catherine Rigby, appeal from the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
On April 18, 2000, the Rigbys filed a complaint against Fallsway Equipment Company, Inc. ("Fallsway"), Rite Hite Corporation, and Atlantic Food Distributors. In their complaint against Fallsway, the Rigbys alleged breach of contract, promissory estoppel, tortious interference with a contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and loss of consortium.
Mr. Rigby was employed by Fallsway from 1996 to 1998. On April 20, 1998, while performing work for Fallsway, a dock leveler collapsed and caused severe injuries to Mr. Rigby's head. Fallsway continued to pay Mr. Rigby pursuant to its wage-continuation policy, which provided that Fallsway would supply payment of wages in lieu of workers' compensation benefits for a period of up to six months.
Mr. Rigby was authorized to return to work for light duty by Dr. Nelson on August 12, 1998, by Dr. Shah on August 14, 1998, and by Dr. Magoon on August 24, 1998. Light duties involved four hours per day, three days a week, performing desk-type work.
On August 5, 1998, and August 21, 1998, Fallsway sent Mr. Rigby letters requesting that he return to work and that his continuing wages would terminate as of August 21, 1998. Mr. Rigby did not return to work. Mr. Rigby's attorney contacted Fallsway by letter and informed Fallsway that the wage-continuation program would terminate effective September 1, 1998, due to Fallsway's breach of the agreement and policy. Thereafter, Fallsway placed Mr. Rigby on medical leave. According to Fallsway's employee handbook, Fallsway employees are entitled to twelve weeks of medical leave. The employee handbook states that if the employee does not return to work at the end of the medical leave, Fallsway will assume that the employee has resigned. At the end of the twelve weeks, Mr. Rigby did not return to work. Fallsway terminated Mr. Rigby's employment on December 1, 1998, and this suit followed. Fallsway moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted Fallsway's motion on all claims. It is from this judgment that the Rigbys now appeal. We will address each assignment of error in turn.
First Assignment of Error
"The trial court erred in holding that Fallsway's employee handbook did not alter Mr. Rigby's 'employment at will' status, as there are material issues for the trier of fact to decide."
In their first assignment of error, the Rigbys assert that the trial court erred in holding that Fallsway's employee handbook did not alter Mr. Rigby's employment-at-will status with regard to their breach-of-contract claim. We disagree.
Appellate review of a lower court's entry of summary judgment is de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. McKay v. Cutlip (1992), 80 Ohio App.3d 487, 491. "[Appellate courts] review the same evidentiary materials that were properly before the trial court at the time it ruled on the summary judgment motion." Am. Energy Serv. v. Lekan (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 205, 208. Pursuant to Civ.R. 56(C), summary judgment is proper if:
"(1) No genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|