 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schul v. Ely2/2/2001
OPINION Rendered on the 2nd day of February, 2001.
Plaintiff-Appellant Bob Schul appeals the decision of the trial court granting summary judgment to all defendants-appellees on the basis of res judicata.
This case arises out of Schul's employment as head coach of Wayne High School's track team in Huber Heights. The defendants-appellees include the Huber Heights Board of Education, the Wayne High School principal, the athletic director, the superintendent of the school board (collectively, "the Huber Heights defendants"), and Michael Fernandez, who was the assistant track coach during Schul's employment. Schul had a one-year limited contract with Huber Heights, for the duration of the 1997- 98 school year. In May of 1998, he was placed on administrative leave following an allegation that he suggested a team member consume caffeine prior to a track meet to enhance his performance. After being placed on administrative leave, Schul had no further contact with any of the defendants-appellees. His contract was not renewed in June.
In June of 1998, Schul filed suit in federal district court against the Huber Heights defendants alleging violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of association, and violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment substantive and procedural due process rights. The following month, Schul filed the instant suit in common pleas court against the Huber Heights defendants and Fernandez, alleging wrongful termination, breach of contract, defamation, and tortious interference with a business relationship. This last claim was directed specifically toward Fernandez, the only defendant who was not named in the federal suit.
The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on all of the claims presented in federal court. In January of 2000, the federal district court granted this motion, and judgment was entered for the defendants. As a result of this judgment, all of the defendants in the present suit filed amendments to their already pending motions for summary judgment, alleging res judicata prevented Schul from prevailing on any action arising out of his terminated employment. The trial court agreed and granted summary judgment for all defendants, including Fernandez.
On appeal, Schul raises the following assignment of error:
The trial court erred and abused its discretion by granting the defendant- appellees' motion for summary judgment on the issue of res judicata. The doctrine of res judicata was examined by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Grava v. Parkman Twp. (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 379, wherein the court adopted the language of 1 Restatement of the Law 2d, Judgments (1982), Sections 24-25. The court first explained that res judicata encompassed both issue preclusion and claim preclusion. Although not relevant to this case, issue preclusion prevents the relitigation of a fact or a point in a subsequent suit that was already fully litigated in a previous action, regardless of whether the two suits are the same or different. Fort Frye Teachers Ass'n, OEA/NEA v. State Employment Relations Bd. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 392, 395. In regard to claim preclusion, the Grava court held that " valid, final judgment rendered upon the merits bars all subsequent actions based upon any claim arising out of the transaction or occurrence that was the subject matter of the previous action." Id. at syllabus. Further, the court quoted the Restatement explaining that this rule "applies to extinguish a claim by the plaintiff against the defendant even though the plaintiff is prepared in the second action (1) To present evidence or grounds or theories of the case not presented in the first action, or (2) To seek remedi
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.
|
|