Case No. 1:17-cv-1963
Gwin, J.
-3-
before the employee may make a protected outside report.
In this context, the word “may”
simply means that an employee can choose whether he wishes to blow the whistle and gain the
statute’s protections.
For these reasons, Tarver’s whistleblower claim fails as a matter of law.
Tarver also asks the Court to reconsider its denial of his wrongful termination in violation
of public policy claim. Tarver now argues that Defendants terminated him in violation of Ohio’s
public policy in favor of workplace safety, as codified in Ohio Revised Code §§ 4101.11 and
4101.12. The Court agrees.
Both state and federal courts have recognized that Ohio Revised Code §§ 4101.11 and
4101.12 state a sufficiently specific public policy to support a wrongful termination claim.
Tarver’s text messages—stating that driving Defendants’ truck would risk his life and reporting
that the truck’s brakes and engine malfunctioned—support his claim that he complained about a
genuine workplace safety issue.
Allowing Defendants to terminate Tarver for reporting this
information could jeopardize Ohio’s public policy in favor of workplace safety. Defendants
have admitted that they fired Tarver because he made these complaints and that they had no
legitimate business justification for firing Tarver.
Tarver has therefore met the requirements for a wrongful termination in violation of
public policy claim.
For these reasons, the Court reconsiders its previous denial of this claim
and GRANTS Tarver’s motion for summary judgment on this claim.
See Jenkins v. Central Transport, Inc., No. 9-CV-525, 2010 WL 420027, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 20, 2010) (citing
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997)).
See Doc. 14-1 at ¶¶ 17-41.
See Doc. 14-5 at 5-6 (request for admissions).
See Zajc v. Hycomp, Inc., 873 N.E.2d 337, 341-42 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007).
Case: 1:17-cv-01963-JG Doc #: 15 Filed: 04/05/18 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>