Daily Case Update Archive

As a service to our members, we monitor opinions issued from the Ohio Supreme Court, the Ohio State First District Court of Appeals, and the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  You can read the latest summaries or archived summaries from 2005 or 2006.

If you would like to receive a daily e-mail with same-day case updates, please join our Members-Only discussion list.  Not a member?  Join today!

May 9, 2006

Ohio Supreme Court | Ohio First District | U.S. 6th Circuit - Ohio | U.S. 6th Circuit - Other States
 

TOPICS:
- Age Discrimination - Ohio public policy claim
- Contracts - Federal Arbitration Act
 

Ohio Supreme Court

 

No Opinion.
 

First District Court of Appeals

[Search Other Ohio Districts]
 

No Opinion.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals:  Ohio Cases

 

Kusens v. Pascal Company (May 9, 2006) Appeal from N.D. Ohio
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0154p-06.pdf
-  Kusens appeals from the District Court's entry of judgment as a
matter of law in favor of the Defendants in this diversity action
stemming from the termination of Plaintiff's employment. After a full
trial on the merits, the District Court granted the defendants' motion
for judgment as a matter of law on Kusens' statutory age discrimination
and retaliation claims, but denied the motion with respect to
Plaintiff's Ohio public policy claim. The public policy claim was
sent to the jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Kusens.
Defendants then renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law on
the public policy claim and the District Court granted the renewed
motion finding that Plaintiff had failed to establish at trial that he
was an at-will employee, which the court held to be an essential element
of a public policy claim under Ohio law. Judgment AFFIRMED.
 

U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Other States Cases

 

Stutler v. T.K. Constr Inc. (May 9, 2006) Appeal from E.D. Kentucky
-  http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/06a0155p-06.pdf
-  T. K. Constructors Inc. moved in the district court for an order to
stay these proceedings pending arbitration. The district court denied
the motion. Because we conclude that the holdings in those cases do not
extend to contracts requiring the mandatory arbitration of disputes
regarding state law claims only, we VACATE the district court's order
and REMAND the matter for disposition consistent with this opinion.
 

Daily Case Updates