Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Anthony Cozzuli v. Sandridge Food Corp.

September 26, 2011

ANTHONY COZZULI APPELLANT
v.
SANDRIDGE FOOD CORP. APPELLEE



APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF MEDINA, OHIO CASE No. 10CIV0020

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Whitmore, Presiding Judge.

Cite as Cozzuli v. Sandridge Food Corp.,

ss:

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Anthony Cozzuli, appeals from the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, Sandridge Food Corp. ("Sandridge"). This Court affirms.

I

{¶2} Cozzuli began working as a mechanic for Sandridge on January 23, 2005.

Cozzuli was fifty-five years old when Sandridge hired him and had previously worked for several other companies, primarily performing electrical maintenance. Approximately three other individuals worked with Cozzuli on third shift in Sandridge's Maintenance Department at any given time, but Cozzuli earned a higher hourly rate than his fellow mechanics because of his prior experience. He received a raise after his first ninety days with Sandridge. Additional raises were contingent upon performance reviews, which Sandridge had its supervisors conduct annually.

{¶3} Cozzuli did not receive a raise after his October 2006 performance review. The following summer he applied for a job with another company, partially due to issues he was having with his supervisor and his dissatisfaction with his hourly rate. He received a job offer in August 2007. Cozzuli agreed to forgo the offer, however, after Sandridge offered him the raise he had not received earlier in the year and assured him that there were plans to transfer his supervisor elsewhere. The transfer took place in the spring of 2008.

{¶4} From November 2006 until his July 7, 2008 termination date, Cozzuli received negative feedback from his supervisors on multiple occasions. Specifically, both of the individuals who supervised Cozzuli over the course of his employment at Sandridge had concerns that he was not performing at the same level as other mechanics, despite his additional experience. Cozzuli also took unauthorized smoke breaks, arrived late for scheduled meetings, and failed to meet many of the goals he agreed to make an effort to achieve. For instance, although Cozzuli was told on multiple occasions that he needed to learn how to weld certain types of piping and repeatedly promised that he would attend a welding class, he never did so and failed his welding test on more than one occasion. After Cozzuli failed the last welding test, Sandridge decided to terminate his employment. Cozzuli was fifty-seven years old at the time of his termination.

{¶5} On January 6, 2010, Cozzuli filed a complaint against Sandridge, seeking relief based on breach of an implied contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, promissory estoppel, and age discrimination. Sandridge moved for summary judgment on August 2, 2010, and Cozzuli filed a memorandum in opposition on August 25, 2010. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Sandridge on all counts.

{¶6} Cozzuli now appeals from the court's judgment and raises one assignment of error for our review.

II

Assignment of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.