 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas12/19/1991
Appellant Martha C. Lee appeals from the order of the trial court dismissing her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
I.
Appellant commenced this action on March 7, 1989, against the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas and the Cuyahoga County Board of Commissioners. Appellant amended her complaint on May 2, 1989.
In her amended complaint appellant made the following factual allegations: she was employed as a law clerk for the Common Pleas Court from June of 1979 through March of 1983; there existed no employee handbook or other written memorialization of internal rules pertaining to law clerks at any time plaintiff was employed by the court; the employment was open-ended: that is, law clerks' employment was not limited to a specific term, with some law clerks staying on three, four, and five or more years without objection; she was involved in a serious non-work related accident in March of 1980 at which time she was working directly for Judges Richard Markus and Bernard Friedman; as a result of the 1980 accident fellow employees, including Stanley Kent, the Chief Law Clerk, sent her flowers and visited her; as a result of the 1980 accident she was permitted to take sick time in excess of the allowable limit; after the 1980 accident Judge Markus assisted her in obtaining counsel from his former law firm for her personal injury suit; she was granted a one month leave of absence in December of 1982 to further recover from her injuries; she resigned in March of 1983 because she was unable to handle the responsibilities of her employment and she was never told of a court policy of not rehiring law clerks once they leave; she reapplied for a position as a law clerk two years after her resignation, but was not rehired.
Appellant filed a claim with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission based upon the Common Pleas Court's failure to re-hire her. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission found that no probable cause existed for the filing of the claim.
The specific legal allegations made in appellant's amended complaint are that the court breached a fiduciary duty to appellant, and that the court violated the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Ohio Constitution by failing to tell her of the no-rehire policy. Appellant alleges that the fiduciary relationship was created with the court because she reposed her trust in her superiors after the time of her 1980 accident.
Appellant's amended complaint was dismissed by the trial court pursuant to Civ. R.12 (B)(6). This appeal timely follows.
II.
Appellant has set forth the following assignment of error:
"THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS BECAUSE THE PLAINTIFF SUFFICIENTLY SET FORTH THE ELEMENTS OF A CAUSE OF ACTION PREMISED ON A VIOLATION OF HER RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UNDER THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD."
Pursuant to Civ. R. 12(B)(6), a complaint will be dismissed when it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Appellant first contends that her complaint stated a claim for a Due Process violation under the Ohio Constitution.
"In providing that no state shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,' the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that substantial procedural safeguards be provided in our legal system before one may be deprived of a property right. Section 16 of Article I of the Ohio Constitution, states, in part that: 'All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, g
Page 1 2 3 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|