Tenney v. General Electric Company6/14/2002
JUDGMENT: Affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.
Appellant, Barry P. Tenney, appeals the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas dismissing his complaint against his employer, General Electric Company ("G.E."), and several of its employees, Joanne Deibold ("O'Neil"), Bill Callahan ("Callahan"), Lanette Harbin ("Harbin"), and Terry Larson ("Larson"), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
Appellant has been employed by G.E. since 1973. In his complaint, appellant alleges that in the four years preceding the lawsuit he was subjected to continuous harassment by his supervisors and co-workers, including unwelcome sexual remarks, because of his orientation. Specifically, appellant alleges: (1) O'Neil, the plant nurse, made repeated harassing and outrageous comments regarding appellant's parents and made unwelcome and inappropriate physical contact with him; (2) Callahan, a G.E. employee and also the union president, told appellant that he was a trouble maker, bad worker, and a liar; (3) Harbin, a G.E. employee, threatened to kill appellant; (4) Larson, a G.E. foreman, threatened appellant and became agitated when appellant's friend went to the plant regarding a personal matter; (5) unknown G.E. employees wrote crude and outrageous things about appellant on the bathroom walls and other areas of the facility, including falsely stating that he has AIDS; and, (6) instead of protecting appellant from this conduct, G.E. endorsed the conduct and participated in the alleged harassment. As a result of these actions, appellant claims he suffers severe emotional distress and depression, which causes him to be unable to devote his full attention to his job.
Based on the conduct described, supra, appellant alleges: in Count One, that O'Neil, Larson, Callahan and Harbin, interfered with his employment relationship; in Count Two, that appellees' conduct rose to the level of intentional infliction of emotional distress; and, in Count Three, that, in contravention of Ohio law, appellees discriminated against him on the basis of sexual orientation.
All appellees who had been served with the complaint filed motions to dismiss, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing that appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The trial court granted appellees' motions and dismissed the charges with prejudice. From this judgment, appellant appealed, raising the following assignments of error:
"[1.] The trial court erred in finding that Count II of appellant's complaint - Intentional/Reckless Infliction of Emotional Distress - failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
"[2.] The trial court erred in finding that Count III of appellant's complaint - discrimination/hostile work environment based on sexual orientation - failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted."
In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that Hampel v. Food Ingredients Specialties, Inc., 89 Ohio St.3d 169, 2000-Ohio-128, and Russ v. TRW, Inc. (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 42 support his claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Appellees argue that appellant's reliance on Hampel and Russ is misplaced and that he failed to make sufficient allegations to overcome a motion to dismiss.
When reviewing a trial court's grant of a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, an appellate court must independently review the complaint and determine whether the dismissal was appropriate. McGlone v. Grimshaw, (1993), 86 Ohio App. 3d 279, 285. Dismissal is only appropriate, under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), when it appears, from the compliant, that ap
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|