 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Worpenberg v. Kroger Co.3/8/2002
s no evidence that either Oeters or Greenert had acted beyond the bounds of decency. Their meeting with Worpenberg was conducted in private, behind closed doors, without any attempt to humiliate or embarrass her in front of her co-workers. Kroger expeditiously conducted a further investigation of the matter, even after Worpenberg had quit, and exonerated her. She was then offered continued employment with the promise of management training. Nothing in the behavior of the company or its employees suggested that the investigation into the misrings was prompted by an intention to gratuitously inflict emotional pain upon Worpenberg. Indeed, the company appears to have taken immediate steps to ameliorate any hurt or insult Worpenberg may have felt as a result of the investigation.
Worpenberg also argues that Kroger intentionally inflicted emotional pain upon her by failing to take steps to quash any rumors that surfaced regarding the incident. According to Worpenberg, not only did Kroger fail to take any affirmative action to clear her name, but the company and its employees "fostered the belief that was a thief."
Kroger remonstrates, and we agree, that Worpenberg must bear responsibility for any rumors that arose as a result of her outburst following the interview, in which she loudly proclaimed to two of her co-workers that she was being investigated for theft. Further, the record shows that Kroger did take steps to fend off rumors. Nancy Rhoads-Meiller testified that she told the department heads and managers at the Mason store that Worpenberg had "admitted to some mistakes ringing up the video register," and that she had chosen not to accept reassignment. Greenert testified that when people approached him to ask about Worpenberg, he told them that she was very well liked and had quit. He denied telling anyone that she had been involved in theft. Oeters testified that the only thing that she had said about the incident to anyone else was that Worpenberg was "misringing the video till and she got upset and quit."
On this record, we can find no evidence that Kroger or its employees did anything outrageous or shocking to the conscience by "foster the belief that was a thief." Although Worpenberg argues that the company could have done more to dispel any rumors among its workforce, the fact that it did not do more did not make the company's behavior so "atrocious" or "utterly intolerable" to justify a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. It cannot be overlooked that the company did, in fact, offer Worpenberg further employment with management training-an offer that, if accepted, would have waylaid any rumors that she was caught stealing.
Because we hold that the actions of Kroger and its employees were not of the character necessary to support a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we need not address the company's argument that such a claim was preempted by Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, Section 185(a), Title 79, U.S. Code. III.
In the second issue presented under her first assignment of error, Worpenberg argues that the trial court erred by ruling that her claims for negligent damage to reputation, invasion of privacy, and what she referred to as "the publicity torts" were time-barred. We consider each of these claims in turn.
A. Count I
In the first count of her amended complaint, Worpenberg accused Kroger and its employees of breaching "their duty to by allowing false statements and impressions that was involved in theft from Kroger to be circulated in the community and by not exercising reasonable care to assure that reputation * * * would not be damaged by thei
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.
|
|