 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandenburger v. Hilti3/27/1989
ded plaintiff three opportunities to be rehabilitated from his addictions. If not for his medical insurance through Hilti, it seems unlikely plaintiff could have sought treatment for his addictions. It is apparent from the record that Hilti assisted plaintiff with his recovery from addictions in every manner possible. In return, Hilti requested plaintiff stop drinking or Hilti would be forced to discharge plaintiff. Vannucci's constant threat to plaintiff that if he drank again he would be "out the door" went unheeded by plaintiff. Plaintiff drank alcohol and injected heroin for five months - March through July 1984 - before seeking treatment or assistance.
The record is replete with uncontroverted evidence of plaintiff's fine work performance record when he worked. Hilti admitted plaintiff was a good employee and gave him one promotion and several merit pay increases. Plaintiff's fine performance record could be the reason Hilti continued plaintiff's employment through two and one-half years of treatment for alcoholism and continual absences. However, this fact does not change plaintiff's alcoholic propensities and poor attendance record. Plaintiff may have been one of defendant's better employees; however, once Hilti knew of plaintiff's alcohol and drug use plaintiff was no longer capable of working at his present position due to the extremely dangerous work environment at J & L Steel. Defendant did a great deal for plaintiff and could not reasonably be expected to retain plaintiff as an employee indefinitely.
Construing the evidence adduced at trial most strongly in plaintiff's favor, reasonable minds could come to but one conclusion and that conclusion is plaintiff was discharged for just cause as a matter of law. Plaintiff was an alcoholic and drug user whose employment environment was hazardous and extremely dangerous. Hilti's continued employment of plaintiff subjected defendant to potential immense civil liability and allowed plaintiff to be a risk to himself and others. Plaintiff's excessive excused absences placed a burden upon defendant to find employees who would fulfill plaintiff's duties. Within the two-year period from 1982 through 1984 plaintiff was absent from work approximately 4.3 months or one hundred twenty-nine days. Defendant provided plaintiff with repeated opportunities to rehabilitate himself and maintained plaintiff's position for him while in treatment. Hilti promised to retain plaintiff as an employee if he did not drink alcohol, yet plaintiff consumed alcohol and injected heroin for five months in violation of defendant's promise. Consequently, the record establishes plaintiff was discharged for just cause.
Plaintiff also argues the trial court erred when it granted defendant Hilti a directed verdict since Ohio law recognizes a breach of the covenant of good faith in terminating an employment relationship. In support of his position plaintiff relies on Hoskins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 272, 6 OBR 337, 452 N.E.2d 1315, in which the court held in paragraph one of its syllabus:
"Based upon the relationship be-
tween an insurer and its insured, an insurer has the duty to act in good faith in the handling and payment of the claims of its insured. A breach of this duty will give rise to a cause of action in tort against the insurer. (Hart v. Mutual Ins. Co., 152 Ohio St. 185 [39 O.O.365], followed and extended.)"
Clearly, Hoskins, supra, recognized a cause of action for breach of the duty to act in good faith only in the context of an insurance contract and has no application in the case sub judice.
Assuming, arguendo, Ohio recognizes a claim for br
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|