 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pytlinski v. Brocar Products8/18/2000
son, supra, at 650, 709 N.E.2d at 514-515.
The fundamental question before us now, viz., the statutory limit within which a claim for relief under the tort of wrongful termination in violation of the public policy expressed in R.C. 4113.52 must be brought, was considered in Hady v. Hunt-Wesson, Inc. (N.D.Ohio 1999), 63 F.Supp.2d 830. The district court had before it an employment discrimination case in which it was alleged that an employer had wrongfully discharged an employee in violation of Section 1981, Title 42, U.S.Code, and in violation of R.C. 4113.52 and Ohio public policy. In its decision, the court relied upon the syllabus of Contreras v. Ferro Corp., supra, and upon Justice Douglas's statement in Kulch, supra, at 142, 677 N.E.2d at 315, that " e continue to believe that our discussion in Contreras concerning the specific procedural reporting requirements of R.C. 4113.52(A)(1)(a) comports with the express terms of the Whistleblower Statute."
Ultimately, it was held in Hady, supra, at 832-834, that the one-hundred-eighty-day statute of limitations found in R.C. 4113.52 applied, and that where the statutory claim was time-barred, the public-policy claim based on statutory violations was also time-barred, and the residual statute of limitations for unclassified personal-injury actions (referred to in Painter, supra) did not apply.
We reach the conclusion that where, as here, the clear purport of a complaint for damages for wrongful discharge from employment is that the discharge was retaliatory and violative of public policy in Ohio, and the claim is not brought within the one-hundred-eighty-day period of limitation expressed in R.C. 4113.52, a court does not err in granting a motion to dismiss that complaint as being time-barred. Strict compliance with the statute is mandatory.
Resultantly, the assignment of error and its precept are not well taken, and, for the reasons given, the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Raymond E. Shannon, retired, of the First Appellate District, sitting by assignment.
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|