from the Court of Claims of Ohio Ct. of Cl. No. 2016-00808
Rosenberg & Ball Co., LPA, and David T. Ball, for
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Lee Ann Rabe, and Howard H.
Harcha, IV, for appellee.
1} This is an appeal by plaintiff-appellant, Sherri
Meminger, from a judgment of the Court of Claims of Ohio
dismissing her claim for intentional infliction of emotional
distress pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6).
2} On November 2, 2016, appellant filed a complaint
against defendant-appellee, The Ohio State University. In the
complaint, appellant alleged she had been employed by
appellee as an emergency room secretary at The Ohio State
University Hospital East ("OSU East"), and that
appellee had wrongfully terminated her for allegedly engaging
in inappropriate, threatening, and retaliatory behavior
toward staff members of the hospital. The complaint alleged
causes of action for wrongful termination in violation of
public policy and intentional infliction of emotional
3} On December 29, 2016, appellee filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6). On January
9, 2017, appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to
appellee's motion to dismiss. By entry filed April 17,
2017, the Court of Claims granted appellee's motion to
dismiss as to appellant's claim for intentional
infliction of emotional distress, but denied appellee's
motion to dismiss appellant's claim for wrongful
termination in violation of public policy.
4} On April 20, 2017, appellee filed a motion for
summary judgment, arguing appellant could not pursue a claim
for wrongful termination in violation of public policy
because she was not an at-will employee. On May 17, 2017,
appellant filed a memorandum in opposition to appellee's
motion for summary judgment, asserting there were genuine
issues of material fact as to her employment status. By
decision filed June 7, 2017, the Court of Claims granted
summary judgment in favor of appellee, finding appellant was
not an employee-at-will and, therefore, could not state a
claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy
as a matter of law.
5} On appeal, appellant sets forth the following
assignment of error for this court's review:
The trial court erred in granting Appellee's Motion to
Dismiss Appellant's claim for intentional infliction ...