 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Chasko v. Ellwood Engineered Castings Co.5/6/1996
FORD, Presiding Judge.
Appellant, Phillip M. Chasko, appeals from a judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas which granted appellee, Ellwood Engineered Castings Company, summary judgment.
The dispute in this case arose when appellee, a manufacturer of cast metal ingot molds in Hubbard, terminated the employment of appellant on March 24, 1993. From a review of the record, it appears that appellant was called to attend a meeting with Donald Hartuk, appellee's president; Joe Simko, company vice president; and Lyda Force, company human resource facilitator. The stated purpose of this meeting was intervention for deficient job performance and a poosattitude. Appellant had worked for appellee beginning on December 4, 1991, in a number of capacities. The facility was organized in a "self-directed team" concept which emphasized team discipline. Apparently, appellant was perceived as a troubled worker, and management attempted to intervene and asked appellant to commit to trying to work within appellee's team approach.
At the first scheduled meeting with appellant, which was held on March 22, 1993, the suggested problems were discussed, but no resolution was reached. A follow-up meeting was scheduled for the next day, which appellant failed to attend. The second meeting was rescheduled for March 24 during working hours. When appellant entered the meeting room at the designated time, he placed a tape recording device on the table and proceeded to activate its recording function. Hartuk, who was presiding over the meeting, asked appellant to deactivate the recorder, stating that recording was not allowed. Appellant refused. Appellant was then asked by Hartuk two more times to turn off the recorder, requests which appellant also refused to honor. The meeting was immediately adjourned.
After appellant left the meeting, the decision was finalized to dismiss appellant from his position with appellee. Appellant was escorted from the premises on March 24, 1993, and was informed that his services would no longer be required. When appellant asked why he was being terminated, he was told "insubordination" in refusing to remove the tape recorder after a direct command from the company president to do so.
On November 4, 1993, appellant commenced the present action alleging wrongful termination due to promissory estoppel, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Following discovery, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court granted on August 8, 1995. Appellant now appeals, raising the following as error:
"1. The trial court erred in granting [appellee's] motion for summary judgment with respect to [appellant's] promissory estoppel claim.
"2. The trial court erred in granting [appellee's] motion for summary judgment with respect to [appellant's] fraud claim."
Initially, we must determine what effect the recent Supreme Court of Ohio decision in Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264, has on the disposition of this case. The Dresher decision is the most recent Supreme Court pronouncement regarding the mechanics of Civ.R. 56 summary judgment motions. The court appears to have modified its holding in Wing v. Anchor Media Ltd. of Texas (1991), 59 Ohio St.3d 108, 570 N.E.2d 1095, paragraph three of the syllabus, and established that:
" he moving party bears the initial responsibility of informing the trial court of the basis for the motion, and identifying those portions of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of fact on a material element of the nonmoving party's claim. The portions of the record' to wh
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|