 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brandenburger v. Hilti3/27/1989
eman in a steel plant. Plaintiff's work environment was extremely dangerous and required one to keep his wits about him. Furthermore, Hazlett was discharged as soon as his employer discovered his drug addiction. Hilti, on the other hand, provided plaintiff three opportunities to rehabilitate himself and maintained his employment for approximately two years after discovering plaintiff's alcoholism and drug addiction. An interesting issue presents itself: How many times must an employer grant an employee the opportunity for rehabilitation and hold his job open?
R.C. 4112.02(A) mandates handicapped persons cannot be discharged from their employment without just cause. Hazlett, supra, held that alcoholism was included in the definition of a "handicap" set forth in R.C. 4112.01(A)(13). Therefore, an alcoholic employee cannot be discharged without just cause pursuant to R.C. 4112.02(A). Although it is by no means clear, it can be argued at the time plaintiff was discharged he no longer was a handicapped person since he completed the program at Gateway and was considered rehabilitated. However, in the case sub judice plaintiff was discharged for just cause from Hilti as a matter of law as fully discussed above. Thus, no violation of R.C. 4112.01(A) existed and plaintiff was properly discharged.
Plaintiff further argues the trial court erred when it granted defendant Hilti a directed verdict on plaintiff's reckless infliction of severe emotional distress claim. However, the trial court did not err since plaintiff was unable to establish a prima facie case of reckless infliction of emotional distress.
In Yeager v. Local Union 20 (1983), 6 Ohio St.3d 369, 6 OBR 421, 453 N.E.2d 666, syllabus, the court held:
"One who by extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally or recklessly causes serious emotional distress to another is subject to liability for such emotional distress, and if bodily harm to the other results from it, for such bodily harm." (Citation omitted.)
In Pyle v. Pyle (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 31, 11 OBR 63, 463 N.E.2d 98, paragraph two of the syllabus, this court set forth the elements necessary to establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of serious emotional distress when it held as follows:
"a) * * * the actor either intended to cause emotional distress or knew or should have known that actions taken would result in serious emotional distress to the plaintiff;
"b) * * * the actor's conduct was extreme and outrageous, that it went beyond all possible bounds of decency and that it can be considered as utterly intolerable in a civilized community;
"c) the actor's actions were the proximate cause of the plaintiff's psychic injury; and
"d) * * * the mental anguish suffered by plaintiff is serious and of a nature that no reasonable person could be expected to endure it."
In the case sub judice Hilti's conduct was not extreme and outrageous.
The evidence established defendant Hilti sought what was in plaintiff's best interest and was careful not to disturb plaintiff's emotions prior to his discharge. For example, Hilti paid for, through medical insurance, plaintiff's treatment at three different rehabilitation facilities. Hilti could have terminated plaintiff's employment after plaintiff's first attempt at treatment failed. Instead, Hilti discharged plaintiff after he completed the rehabilitation program making it possible for plaintiff to receive assistance at Gateway. Moreover, plaintiff testified he felt he had the support of Hilti while in Gateway.
In addition, Hilti gave plaintiff a week off after his discha
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.
|
|