Update: on April 12, 2017, the Court dismissed this case as improvidently accepted.

“I don’t understand how this is anything other than a termination for supporting public policy in Ohio.”

Justice O’Neill, to counsel for Medpace

On February 8, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio heard oral argument in the case of McGowan v. Medpace

Update: on April 12, 2017, the Court dismissed this case as improvidently accepted.

Read the analysis of the oral argument here.

On February 8, 2017, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of McGowan v. Medpace Inc., 2015-1756. At issue in the case is what is needed to satisfy

How specific must a plaintiff be to meet the clarity element of a wrongful discharge in violation of public policy tort?  The answer from a unanimous Supreme Court of Ohio in Dohme v. Eurand Am., Inc, 2011-Ohio-4609,  is very specific indeed.  And if the public policy being relied on is workplace safety, generalizations are not

Let’s have some conversation about the Ohio Supreme Court decision in Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-2723.http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/0/2011/2011-ohio-2723.pdf).

The Court decided this case June 9.

DeWayne Sutton was fired within an hour of telling the Tomco company president of an on-the-job injury. The president gave Sutton no reason for firing