 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kemo v. St. Clairsville6/4/1998
t erred in holding that the job defendant offered to plaintiff when it withdrew an earlier conditional job offer was not comparable to the first position offered for purposes of tolling or reducing back wages."
In light of our discussion addressing appellant's first and second assignments of error, we find it unnecessary to address the comparable nature of the two offers. Having concluded that appellant was not bound to employ appellee pursuant to R.C. 4112.02(A), the similarity or difference of the two offers is immaterial, as they are legally independent of each other. We therefore find appellant's third assignment of error irrelevant.
Since appellant's fourth and fifth assignments of error relate to the calculation and amount of damages awarded by the trial court, we shall dispose of them together. Appellant's fourth assignment of error alleges:
"The trial court erred in holding that plaintiff is entitled to back pay beyond the date he voluntarily quit his employment with Demand Side Resources."
Appellant's fifth assignment of error alleges:
"The trial court's award of back wages in the amount of $45,212.79 is not supported by the record."
We have already concluded that appellant was not bound to employ appellee. We also conclude that appellee failed to establish that he was injured as a result of appellant's conduct. Having failed to establish an injury , a discussion of damages is moot. Appellant's fourth and fifth assignments of error are therefore moot.
For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the trial court is reversed. Judgment for appellant.
Judgment reversed.
GENE DONOFRIO, P.J., and VUKOVICH, J., concur.
|