 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories10/27/2005
{ } On September 10, 1999, plaintiff-appellant, David A. Jelinek, re-filed a complaint in the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas against Abbott Laboratories, Ross Products Division, Joy A. Amundson, Thomas M. McNally, William H. Stadtlander, Karl V. Insani, Gregory A. Lindberg, and James L. Sipes. The complaint set forth claims for relief of promissory estoppel, age discrimination in violation of R.C. 4112.02(A) and 4112.99, retaliation in violation of R.C. 4112.02(I) and 4112.99, violation of public policy, and spoliation of evidence.
{ } On July 31, 2000, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion, and the defendants filed a reply. On January 23, 2001, the trial court rendered a decision granting defendants' motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in favor of defendants on February 12, 2001. Plaintiff appealed from this entry to this court, contending that the trial court erred in granting defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the claims of age discrimination, promissory estoppel, constructive discharge, and retaliation and wrongful discharge in violation of public policy.
{ } On September 13, 2001, this court issued an opinion reversing the trial court's judgment regarding plaintiff's claims of age discrimination, promissory estoppel, and constructive discharge. Jelinek v. Abbott Laboratories (Sept. 13, 2001), Franklin App. No. 01AP-217 ("Jelinek I"). This court essentially determined that genuine issues of material fact remained as to the claims for age discrimination, promissory estoppel, and constructive discharge. Relating to the age discrimination claim, this court, in Jelinek I, stated as follows:
* * * Ross eliminated all of the district manager positions as part of a larger business plan. [Plaintiff was a primary care district manager at the time the position was eliminated.] According to Mr. Lindberg's April 27, 1999 affidavit, Ross attempted to place the former district managers in their respective regions in order to save on relocation expenses. However, Mr. Lindberg stated that appellant and Mr. Schlies were offered positions that required them to transfer, and the Lake County, Indiana territory was the only open sales territory in appellant's region. Mr. Schlies had been the district manager in the Chicago territory and was offered a position in Memphis, Tennessee.
Construing the evidence most strongly in favor of appellant, we determine that there are genuine issues as to whether appellees' actions with regard to appellant's transfer were discriminatory. Appellant put forth evidence that of the eight district managers, he had the most years of service and was the oldest. Ross stated that it attempted to keep the former district managers in their respective regions. However, Mr. Schlies, who was not in the protected class, was moved from the Chicago area to Memphis, Tennessee. The Lake County, Indiana territory was geographically closer to Mr. Schlies's former territory than Memphis. There is no explanation in the record as to why Mr. Schlies was offered the comparable position in Memphis and not appellant, who had more seniority. For purposes of summary judgment and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of appellant, appellant has shown genuine issues of fact as to his claim against appellees for age discrimination.
{ } In Jelinek I, this court affirmed the trial court's granting of defendants' motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff's claim of retaliation/wrongful discharge in violation of public policy. Id. The cause was accordingly remanded to the trial court to conduct further proceedings consistent with the opinio
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|