 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worpenberg v. Kroger Co.3/8/2002
OPINION.
Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
The plaintiff-appellant, Pamela Worpenberg, appeals from the order of the trial court granting summary judgment to the defendants- appellees, The Kroger Company and three of its employees, in an action arising out of Worpenberg's resignation from the company. Worpenberg, a front-end manager, resigned during a meeting in which the company was investigating accounting errors ("misrings") made by her, and in which she felt that she was being unjustly accused of theft. Worpenberg's action included claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy, and what she referred to as "publicity torts" and "negligent damage to reputation."
In her single assignment of error, Worpenberg asserts that summary judgment on her claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress was improper because the conduct of Kroger and its employees was sufficiently extreme and outrageous to support such a claim. She also contends that the trial court erred by determining that her claims for "publicity torts, "negligent damage to reputation," and invasion of privacy were barred by the applicable statute of limitations. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
I.
On September 2, 1997, Worpenberg was called into the manager's office of the Kroger grocery store in Mason, Ohio, where she worked as a front-end manager in the video department. She was met there by Judy Oeters, a trainer for the store, and Charles Greenert, a member of the company's Risk Management Department. She was advised of inaccuracy in her records due to an unusual number of misrings. The company was concerned with the number of misrings and with a particular misring involving the sum of $200. Worpenberg testified on deposition that although she was told by Oeters that she was not being accused of theft, the tenor of the remarks directed at her were overtly accusatory. For example, she testified that Greenert said to her, "We're not accusing you of theft. We just want to know where the $200 is. * * * Come on Pam. Tell me where the $200 is."
Worpenberg became indignant. According to Worpenberg, she reviewed the records herself and determined that there was, in fact, an overage, not a shortage. Worpenberg accepted responsibility for the misrings.
She testified, however, that when she asked whether the till had balanced, she was refused an answer-even though, she alleged, both Oeters and Greenert knew that there was no money missing. She testified that, despite their being an overage, not a shortage, Greenert continued to insinuate that she had behaved dishonestly, telling her at one point, "We're watching you with the cameras, Pam. We've got you on film."
At the end of the meeting, Worpenberg was asked to prepare a written statement and was then advised that she was being suspended pending further investigation. Worpenberg's response was dramatic. She testified that she said, "No, I quit. I don't need this f'ing job . I can get a job anywhere." She testified that she then told Greenert that she expected an apology after an investigation exonerated her. Greenert told her that if she quit there would be no further investigation.
Worpenberg then left the meeting and went outside the manager's office to her desk, where she began collecting pictures of her children to take home. Two of her co-workers, one of whom was Nancy Rhoades- Meiller, her immediate supervisor, watched her. Worpenberg testified that she said to Rhoades-Meiller, "Is this what you think of me, Nancy? You think I would take money? Is that what you fucking
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|