Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc

In Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134, 1997 Ohio 219, 677 N.E.2d 308, the Supreme Court of Ohio reaffirmed the test for determining whether a viable common-law cause of action for tortious wrongful discharge in violation of public policy exists. The elements that must be met, in order for a claim to be viable, are as follows: That a clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the common law (the clarity element); That dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff's dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (the jeopardy element); The plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy (the causation element); and The employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal (the overriding justification element). Kulch, supra, 78 Ohio St.3d at 150-151, citing Painter, supra, 70 Ohio St.3d at 384, relying on H. Perritt, The Future of Wrongful Dismissal Claims: Where Does Employer Self Interest Lie? (1989), 58 U.Cin.L.Rev. 397, 398-399. In Kulch, the Supreme Court of Ohio also noted its prior holding in Collins v. Rizkana (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 70, 1995 Ohio 135, 652 N.E.2d 653, "that the clarity and jeopardy elements of the tort of wrongful discharge are questions of law to be determined by the court," and that "conversely, the causation and overriding justification elements are questions of fact for the trier-of-fact." In Kulch, the Ohio Supreme Court again acknowledged the exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, wherein the Court provided: Greeley and Painter recognize an exception to the employment-at-will doctrine when an at-will employee is discharged or disciplined for a reason that contravenes clear public policy. There is no question that Greeley and Painter recognize that clear public policy may be ascertained from a statutory provision or from any number of other sources. If there was ever any serious question whether a specific statute had to be violated for Greeley to apply, Painter answered that question in the negative by expressly overruling Tulloh, supra. See Painter, paragraph three of the syllabus. The question whether the Greeley public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine applies only in cases involving a statutory violation was soundly rejected not only in Painter, but in the recent case of Collins v. Rizkana (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 1995 Ohio 135, 652 N.E.2d 653. Kulch, 78 Ohio St.3d at 150.