 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandenburger v. Hilti3/27/1989
each of the covenant of good faith in other than insurance matters, the facts of the case sub judice would not support plaintiff's claim. The evidence established Hilti retained plaintiff as an employee after discovering his alcoholism during his mental breakdown as a result of his divorce and provided plaintiff thereafter three opportunities for rehabilitation. Furthermore, defendant told plaintiff that if he took a drink he would be "out the door." Plaintiff drank and used heroin after explicitly being informed by defendant that his continued employment depended upon his sobriety. Thus, defendant acted in good faith when dealing with the plaintiff. As stated above plaintiff was discharged for just cause as a matter of law.
Plaintiff also argues the trial court erred when it granted Hilti a directed verdict on plaintiff's wrongful discharge in violation of public policy claim since this claim is recognized under Ohio law. Specifically plaintiff argues: (1) Alcoholism is a "handicap" as defined by R.C. 4112.01(A)(13), see Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc. (1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 279, 25 OBR 331, 496 N.E.2d 478; (2) Ohio has a public policy in favor of alcohol rehabilitation; (3) plaintiff was discharged for having a handicap,. viz., alcoholism; and thus (4) plaintiff's discharge from his employment at Hilti is in violation of public policy. Plaintiff's argument merits consideration.
In Phung v. Waste Management, Inc. (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 100, 103, 23 OBR 260, 262-263, 491 N.E.2d 1114, 1117, the court specifically deferred to the General Assembly the responsibility for creating a public policy cause of action or an exception to the employee at-will doctrine. In R.C. 4112.02 the General Assembly created an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. R.C. 4112.02(A) provides in pertinent part as follows:
"It shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice:
"(A) For any employer , because of the * * * handicap * * * of any person, to discharge without just cause * * * or otherwise to discriminate against that person with respect to * * * tenure, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, or any matter directly or indirectly related to employment."
R.C. 4112.01(A)(13) defines "handicap" as follows:
"(13) `Handicap' means a medically diagnosable, abnormal condition which is expected to continue for a considerable length of time, whether correctable or uncorrectable by good medical practice, which can reasonably be expected to limit the person's functional ability, including, but not limited to, seeing, hearing, thinking, ambulating, climbing, descending, lifting, grasping, sitting, rising, any related function, or any limitation due to weakness and significantly decreased endurance, so that he can not perform his everyday routine living and working without significantly increased hardship and vulnerability to what are considered the everyday obstacles and hazards encountered by the non-handicapped."
In Hazlett v. Martin Chevrolet, Inc.
(1986), 25 Ohio St.3d 279, 25 OBR 331, 496 N.E.2d 478, syllabus, the court held: "Drug addiction and alcoholism are handicaps as defined in R.C. 4112.01(A)(13)." In Hazlett the plaintiff informed his employer that plaintiff needed a twenty-eight-day leave to obtain treatment for his drug addiction. In response to plaintiff's request, defendant summarily discharged plaintiff.
The facts of the case sub judice differ greatly from Hazlett, supra. Hazlett was a "white collar" employee whose responsibilities included the sale and implementation of dealer financing for his employer's new car customers. Plaintiff in the case sub judice was a for
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.
|
|