You are on page 1of 38

00122

COIIRT IN TIIE IJ}TITED STAiES DISTIICT ogro oF DrslRlcr FoR THE sourrrinN
WESTER}T DIVISION ) i ) ) ) ) ) ), Case No. C-1-00-651
Mt8.----F-

FII.:D JT}T,URPH KENHETH - h P H2 ' 5 8 0l DEC


U - 5L . : : ' , ' : , 'ii . i r i J R T

Mark J ' KeIIY P Ia i n t i ff '


vEl,

,)

fig!-,H5'ijt?

Lambda Regearch,

Inc' Defendant '

o R D E.B.
ThismatterisbeforetheCourtonDefendantl,ambda Regearch,Inc''eMotl.onforSummary.rudgmenE(Doc.No..21)and ResponBe to Motion for supplemental Plalntlftra Motion to strike Also before the Court is a (Do:' No' 31)' Summary Judgment aft'er report hts experttB to ftle Plaintiff u h e b y f i l e d motion For the reasons set date (Doc' No ' zil ' cutoff Lhe discovery wellmotrl.on for eummary Judgment ie fortrh below, DefendantlE ie MOoE' 'nption to strike Defend'ant's raken and i8 GRAIffED' Plal.ntlff'smotiontofi}ehieexpert'ereportafuerthe discoverY cucoff date is MOOT' r. Baqkqround

TheplatnuiffinthiscaseleMarki''Kelly,PlainElff isacitizenofthescateoflndianaandho}dsaPhDdegreein Amended Complaint of Cincinnat,i ' from the Univerel.cy cheml.stry fnc' case iE La&da Research' The Defendant in t'his 2.

place of with its pr incipal ( , , L a mb d a n ), a n Oh i o cor :por aEion L'arnbdais in lhe ohio' IL business located in Cinclnnatl' hr:gj.neseofperformingx.raydiffractlonmaterialgtegtinqfor g o ve rn me nt' and academic cliente' l n d u sE ri a l ,

32

00123
began working for Lambda in .ruly 1998 as a technician in Ehe x-ray diffraction laboracory, aleo known ae Lab rr. r n D e ce mb e r 1 9 9 8 , p lainciff was pr om oted to supenr isor of Lab ff. According to plaintiff, he agreed to go to work for r-rambda because iEs prestdenc and director of researeh, paur Prevey, assured him Ehat Lambda was in compliance wlth all indusE'ry sE,andards such as A2rAr and rso goo2.2 upon aecepting the Job at Lambda, plar.ntiff signed a non-competi'ion agreement precluding him from worklng in a compe.r.ng business for one full year following the termination of his employment. Se, Doe. No. 2 4 , E x . C. P l a i n ctff E a y' , howevetr , chaE pr eveyr s aE,sur ance s that Lambda adhered Eo ind.ustry etandard,g ti.rrned out eo be untruer . praintlff
I

plaintiff

etates

that

when he became supenrisor

I I I I
I

rr'

he became awarr that procedures

of r.ab

there were signiflcanb teete

wrirten

problems wrth the rn that the

used to conduct certain

geqgdlg

Arnerlcan .f.eeoci"tron f;;';J.1rr..,,-, Hornepase

F';!' iiiiiiFF-": ;6*i;;i:rF*#"i#fsiii:Ei:i3:!:ff"i perlodrc prorlciency unde


certrln

"i3pJoi;";L::,"ll*^:3r^!I"_11:Ilrp
A raboratorw AFarad{ra,r=i]

recosnl'Llon of a1 grgi"ii.rlJ;;;-;;;t'ii'-"ortaEion
eeJcJ.

Assocr.ar ion for


ls formal
to p"riort

fiffi

n^^_-:. -+ ;ri: l:;T"+:ff:l.ie:.;lo, i:iJTlll3;..ffi"" FAe,hE f; il"y ;*;: *31' , *IE:' rp ' rzurn 'laz i a.i:: . ;;i ii . ""q

a;;r; :3?".ff i:31 f:u'. Px x *:F:,t'"!8"ff5 ro mainfii"-ri5 ffS.hTt

g:ypetency

ff:1l;isuuuenn

I?= senrrclnsges rnEernationil ricernationli see orsanizaEion orsaniz"cion-e;;-;i;;eJ;i re-r eFr-rr-rl_:sTi._ltg. Holnepdg, htte i / cfr f;;i;;i;ai,I mrra,'al-.,'t31!io! "+nw,_iEo.
a

orsanr,zaE,ron Hii:.i:":" . i;:"lga f3f^.*-l:I"f"lionar i 3: : i3.:ilHl"35Tllf; L iE"*H:: fi IIF :*:*;1 _" $ ;-i :, :.i:i,i i::r_ :li" L gxi H'iiliff":"o" I. Titi';I"*l u::3. :. ifi : i*:' r: i_ iii i --'iso ni i and all i aoplicable ; regulaEory :;,1 i 5 i: i :i"1" requireinenr;. i :$ "d, i" ffi :I13 . u' * i;'":;i: iil": in#; ;;;;^i:'rte&Es qualiu! qualiLy .r ";l sysEem syicem roi ploduccion, pioduccion, asrsurance as insrar .rFi ^-*-T991 . inetalfitio",-"i.-"-ott
November

v
procedures procedures,
aceurace gave rise General zirconium perforined t'hat' the test to

00124\
eiEher eould not be followed as writ,ten or tbtat the and

when fol.lowed exactly,


resulte. thls However, oecurred Energy for

did noc produce rellable


the particular in .7uly 19gg. incidenE 14 thqt that

lawsuLc Nuelear samples

month,

Electric Eubing the

(',GENn) eubmitted diffracrion a report to

Eo rrambda three lambd.a

x-ray

cesting, GEN,

tests for

and provided one of

GEN believed E,o be incorrect

resulcs

Ehe samples

appeared

and requeeted Lambda recheck the Eest, Plalntlff fatled eurface' s k e w e d. discovered t,o ensure that, the technician

After

Lnveetigatl.on. t,he teEt.

performing

uhac the sample wae flat

on the mourrting the test results par tlcular were

Because the eample was not flat, s'e g D o c. N o . 24, Ex. G.

Although in thls the written

case, uhe c,echnician Plaint,iff followed also

dld not forlow that

procedure, was

dlscovered

even when the procedure could sometimes be

verbatlm,

begt, reeults itself

becauee t,he procedure f l a t n e e s, P1atntif,f

"r=or,"or" did not ensure adeguate sample As a r eeur t of thls incident,

se g i 5 [* E x. s.

became eoncerned that results

in the past Lambda had provlded tubing samplee subject

to GEN erroneoust test to 10 c.F.R- pt.

on zirconium

21rs nuclear safety report,lng requlrements,3 ag used to make fuel rods for

- e e eD o e . N o , 2 L , E x . E ,

T
?herefore' Plaintiff

00125
recomrnendedto Prevey E.hat Lambd,anogtfy GEN of t'he potentiar problems wlch paBt zirconium arloy tesEs eo that GEN could evaruate the geriousnessr of E,he srcuaE,ion, ses rd. rn co n j u n e cl o n 'with the er r oneaus teet, plaintiff prepared fncident actions dereted and submicted to prevey a draft Qualit,y Assurance and howev.er,

Report which deecribed the problem, E,haE should be taken. See id.- Ex. G.

a solution, prevey,

ttre recommendatlon Ehat GEN be nottfLed GEIrIhad already been notlfled-of eo whlch prevey referred,,

and inEtead wrote Ehe probrem. see

by hand that id.

The problem

however, an unrelated

was not a problem been

problem wit,h sample mounting, but rather reEarding not.ified. 90 degree rotation See plainEiff,

about whleh GEN trad earlier

Aff .. Doc. No, 24, Ex, B. prevey I fS, also dereced a recommendaclon.Ehat t,he procedure for zr.rconium testlng be modlfied to ensure sample flacness. s,ee Ex. G; PLalnriff Aff. t 15. f dLecovered a anaryEis prepared a SubsequenE,ly, also in .TuIy Lggg, plaintif problem wluh the software which also used in zir'conium text,ure plalnt.iff

caused erroneous tesE results. report deecribing

eecond incident

both the eample flaEness and, recomrnending thaE of bobh , when

problem and the problem with the eoftware probleme' preeented

the soft\rare,

be correcEed and thac GEN be not,Lfied

see Doc- No. 24, Ex. T. with the Eecond incident earlier

Accord,ing co prar.ntiff report, edits prevey

became angry

and demanded t,o know r+hy hls incorporat'ed into Ehe report -

had noE been f

prevey d,emand,edthaE. plaintif

Err

00126
make the could to the not changbe because t.o Ehe reporE, t,he 90 degree Prevey then but Plalnciff explalned wae not Plalntiff to discuss See that he

rotatlorr

problem

related and the

incident. to

took

Ehe reporE. from on iE, and not

EoId him not lncident P1aint. wit,h Aff'

braste any more time under

anyone else f L7, says the

penalE.y of

terminatlon.

Plaint,iff 'the probl.ems with

that

followlng testing to

his

attempte

to

remedy beeame other

zlrconlum

procedure, f Lre him over review in the

Prevey Eeveral

lrosclle

E,owards him and threaEened, In addition, rated gualiuy in

j-ncidents. 28, 1999,

a performanee deflclent syetem

dated areas

Septernber of, of x-ray

Prevey of the

Plalnt,lff aesurance

knowledge diffraceion, high1y ' in

ar:d knowledge Prevey rated

whereae three E,hese areas. Belleving testing that problem,

nonEhs earlier

Plaintiff

See PlainE. Prevey

Aff . { 18' to the cover up t,he

wae attempting contacEed

zirconlurn Regulatory of the

Flaintiff

Nuclear evaLuatlon

CommLssion Plaintiff over support

('II{RCn) Eo conduct, a Eechnica} had several couple of diecuseLons

ieeue.

wl,t.h NRC

investlgacors documents to

trhe nexe the the

monchs and provld,ed See Plaint. Plalnttff fn Dep. 155-53. and a part,, Ehe

{nvestlgat,ion. NRC eenE to it,s

On December 161 1999, cover letEef letter

a reportr pertl.nent,

summarizlng

conclusione.

Etates I

'

Based upon our review and the informat,lon obtalned from experEa, rrre belleve t,hat the problerns wlbh Lambda Research texture analysis may be at,tribuced to poor and texture analyels concrol of epecimen preparation procedures. FurE,her, wE believe thac EexEure an-lyses
[gic], ln general, cannot, be used to inadvertently

a0727

co n ce rn . g g g D o c ' N o - 2 4 , E x. v, a t 1, Ehat' " [uJ n].ess Ehe NRC receives suggests our conclusions . act,ion on tshis matter.n convinced, beeause in however, that The eover letter addlulonal fur ther etates that

information

ehould be altered, see ld. at z.

we plan no further plaintlff was not concluslon nWe are unsure use Ehe tex.ure desplte hiE

t,he NRC reached the correct the NRC stat,ee,

the accompanying report

how GE NucLear or Lambda Research's other clients analyels fesults.rr See ld. at 4, Neverthelese, rnlsgrvlnge about the report, praintiff

did nouhing to cortrec! any misapprehensl'one thaE the NRC might have had abou. GEN,' use of Lambda's zirconium testing se*rr.ces. praint. Dep. at 165-65, The issue of the quallty aEurance rncid,ent report then lay dormanE untll February 16, 2OOOwhen Marle Marawl, Lambda,s quality assurance manager, brought plaintiff another vereion of the report for his signature. praintiff eold Marawl that he w o u r d n o c e l g n th e i e p o rc until he r eviewed it. see pr ainE, A ff. f zr' F o r ro w i n g th i s re fu sar to slgn Ehe r epor t,, Fr aint,iff clalme thae prevey began heaprng abuse on hlm. For instance, plaintiff when aeked permission to implement a new procedure using hot epoxy for mount,ing zirconium sarnples, prevey frew into a rage, demanding to know why Ehe procedure had nots already been

0012F
J.mplementsed-r lab after hours Plaintiff says thac Prevey eonfronted him in Ehe he

and angrlly

demanded Ehat, Plaint,lff

admiE. that t,he zLrconium

and E,he 1ab technicians t,esEing. PlaLnulf f During cJaims with t,hie

had intenEionally'bungled eneounter, which lasEed

about

a half . file

hour,

Ehat Prevey Prevey.plaeing

"goE in in

face. rr

The incid,ent personnel Aff. says X 22. Ehat

culminaced

Plainciffre plainEplaintiff

two

m e m o s rc r i t i c a l

of

his

performance-

Folrowing mistreatrnent ouEburete delivery the suaff at times of him

t,hab incidenr,

preveyrs angry

him continued.

Prevey cont,Lnued not meeting by prevey

t,o direcE unreasonable

and blamed him for to customers flve

promLsed

and, after

cuEting began rrat hls

Ln t,he 'lab anocher

froni

Eo two.

rn addrcion, MLchael

prevey in

invorwJ.ng II, lab.

managernen! emproyee, Plaintiff

Glavlcrc,

effectLvely, rd. f 23.

saysr, preparing

Glavicic

t,o run

on the Ietter fired of or

nlght

of

February

24, 2ooo, that

prainEiff he would the

prepared eit,her

a be

reeignation forced to

because participat,e on February report, probrem

he believed in 2s, a cover .zooo,

uB of prevey

zirconLum to

tesEing.problems. PlainEiff

presenued

an incidenE of with fLve the

which

sEated trhat

GEN had already he sign it

been not,ified immediat,ely plaintiff

and d,emanded thac to Ehe texE. an hour

no changes mlnutee,

ptrevey Ehen gave. to eign the report.

and later,

00129
Plaintiff t'o furcher rather aays that d i scu ss at the end of the hour, th e si tuation, when prevey refueed r esignation { 25. count he submitted his

than sign

a repor!

he knew to be un.rue. fir ed

rd. a five

o n A u g u e t 1 5 , 2 000, plaintiff complaint vr-olation agatnst of

Lambda under ohlo raw for statuce,

terml.naEion in ohio Rev, cod,e s pof tc y ,

th e o h i o w h i stlebl0wer te rmi n a tion

4 1 1 3 , 2 5 , 'w ro n g fu l lnt,enfional

in violaelon

of Ohto public

intlietion

of emotlonaL d,lstress,

breach of contract, flled under the an

a n d p r o m i e so ry

e sco p p e l '

on Januar y 31, zoo1t plainttff eause of action

amended complaLnt L a n h a mA c t ,

whlch ad,d,eda elxth

15 U.S.C. S 1125. pollowing the close of dlecovery,

Lambda filed r e cr ar .m s.

a motion wlth

for

s u m ma ry j u d g me n t a 6 co each of pr aintiff claim,

respecU Eo the whietleblower has no evidence whistleblowing that

Lambd,aargues Ehat plaintlff to dleelplinary actl.on for

he wae subjected

because he reslgned and cannot estabrleh that he was constructively diecharged. In any event, Lambda.argues, the evidence doee not establish a causal conneccion due to lapse of tr-me between the whletr.ebl0wing and the arleged. conBtructlve discharge. Furthermore, Lambda argrues, plaintiff dld not saClefy th e n o t i c e re q u i re me n te o f S 4113.82. Finally, Lam bda ar gueE Ehat Plaintiff did not have a reasonabre bellef of lmminent risk the erroneoua of harm because Ehe NRC had already zirconturn testLng

concluded, t,hat

to eafety. Lambda argrueg ' thaE summary JudgmenL on the wrongfur'termination in vioratlon of

did not pose a threat

00130
i public policy t6 apPropriate cIal.m. to the intent,ional infliction of emollonal for the same reasons as the

whisEleblower

With respect dieErees cl,aim,

Lambda argrues that

Bumrnary Judgment ts PlalnUitf complalns about Lambda

approprlaue

because none of the actions conduct.

. amount to extreme or outrageous EayB, there iE no evidenci

Furthermore, suffered

that, PlainEiff

eevere

e m o E , i o n a l d i stre se ,

a s lc is deflned under ohio law. on the breach of, waer an employee

Lambda arslues thats sumrnary judgment contract ab-wil1. eetoppel claim is approprLate because PlainEiff

f,ambda conE,ends t.hat summary judgment on the promissory claim is aPProPriate rely because PlainEiff, dld not Finally,

detrimentally j

on any promiseg made by Lambda.

. Lambda argues thaU summary judgment on the Lanham Act, claim le ls not wlthin the clasg of persone appropriat,e because Platnclff neant to be protect.ed Plaintiff motion for bY the Act. a memorandumin oppositlon whieh relies extensively, to l-rambdaf s tf not

filed

summary judgment on hle t.o rebut

excluelvIy, tesgimony, reply brlef

own affldawiu, Lambda's

raEher than his

deposition In its

(Doc, No . 27), conEradicte his

Doc. No. 24. S-eq, .argumenEg. Lambda argrues that Plalnt,if f t e testLmony and that on the of civil

affidavit

deposition of lc

t.he Court

should rejecE, conEideraEion judgmentr motrion. call only for Atthough

ln ruling rules

sumnary procedure brLef, brief , a

the local

uhe filing

of a motion and supporttng to the rnotion, .and a reply

memorandurn1n opposltion

00131
Pl.aintiff . judgment contradict deposiulon whlch would filed (Dgc. his a eupplemental No, 30) which reaponse Eo the arguea chat his and that awoided motion for summary

affldavlu during asking his

does not

deposition counsel fully the

Eeetimony st,udiously

defense have

guestions filed

developed

the evidence. brief

Lambda then 31)

a motion

t,o sE,rlke of the

supplernental rule

(Ooc. No. the

as belng of

in violaEion motlons.

local

eetabliehing

briefing

The outsEandlng now ready for dlsposition. IL

mptions

have been fully

brlefed

and are

Summarv Judqment is

Standard ttlf

of the

Review pleadings,

Summary Judgment depositions, together genuine ls with issue answers the to

proper

lnterrogatories, if any,

and admLseions on flle, show t.hat there is no

.affidawite,

as to

any materiaL

facC and trhat law.rt for

Che mowing party ped, R. Clv. p.

entlcled fhe

t,o Judgment as a matcer of evidence ln the preaented

56(c). . is

on a motion

sunmary Judgment non-rnoving party,

construed glven

t,he light benefit united

rnost favorable of all favorable

Eo the

who le

Lnferences lnc.,

thats can be 6s4

drawn cherefrorn, (x962).

stat,ee v. of

Diebold.

369 u,s. dispute

DThe mere exletence wirl not

some arl.eged

factuar

beEween tshe partLes supported there motion for

defeat

an ocher$rlsl the fact.

prop"rly ls v. that LiberEy

summary judgmenti issue 242, of matgrigl

requiremeng n Anderson

be no genuipe

Lobby. Ine-,

47? U,S.

248 (19S6) (emphasle ln

original),

10
\ \ \ \ I ,
l
I

! ^

00133
The CourE will clear t ha t a tri a l noL grant summary judgrmenu unless The thr eshold trial inguir y.to t'there are it is

i s u n necessar y,

determine wlreuher t,here ie a need for any genulne factual a finder of either for trial of

is whether

iesues thaE, properly

can be reeolved. only by ln favor

fact, because uhey rnay reasonably be resolved Andereon, 477 u.s. there ls sufficient at 250,

party.tt unless for

There is no iseue the nonpart,y. the rd.

evidence favoring a verdict. for that

moving party

a Jury to return that

The fact moving party


Judgment.

the weighE of uhe evidenee a court t,o grant

favors

does noc authorize


PolLer v. Jolumbla " [T]he issue

aummary
fnc., 3Cg U,S, by Rule required its

Broadcastinq of material

Svstelq, fact E,rial

464, 472 (1962), 56@ . to

requlred le not

enEitle

a party

to proceed to in favor of

to be resolwed exisE,ence;

eoncrusively arr the

che party ie Ehat

asserE,ing suf f ictenE be shown to dif fering

rather,

t,hat, is craimed

required factual

evl-dence aupporting require a jury or

dlspute

a Jqdge to

resorve

t.he partiesr

versione

o f th e tru th

a t, Lr ial.' ,

Service Go., 391 IJ.S, 253, 288-99 (f g6e)Moreover, extreme caution court, FmLLhv. although eummary judgment muFE be used wlth hls cerql day in

eince

its operaE,es to deny a lltigant

Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, G3 (Ot,h Cir.),

diemisse4'

444 u.s.

hae etaEed tsha.Ethe

986 (19?9). lhe United States supreme Court trleJurnmary Judgmerrcprocedure is properly procedural shortcut, but rather as

regarded not as a dlefavored an lntegral parE of

t,he Federal Rulee as a whoJe, which are


11

00133
deslgned to 'secure of the jusE, speedy and lnexpeneive Coro, w. Catr-gt-t-, 477 the for if a

determination U. S. 3L7 , 327 etandard directed for

every

act,ion. 1tr Celotex According

(f geg) , granting

t,o Che Supreme .Court, mirrorg is the

summary jridgment

standard

verdict,

and thus

rummary judgment there for is

approprtate

the

movLng parLy favoring that the

establishee non-moving fd.

that party

insuffieient to rec,urn

ewLdence a verd,l.cc for

a jury

party.

aE 323i Andereon, 477 U.S. summary judgmenc ie

at. 2S0.. clearly proper to

Accordingly, rlagainst est,ablish a part,y

who fail.s of

to make a ehowlng

sufficlent to

uhe existence

an element eesential

the party's

case and on'which trial.'t celo-tex

bear the burden of proof at ,w111 coro. , 477 u.s. at 3zz. stgntflcanery, the inetructs enE,ry of that therrthe plaln language of Rule

thab party

Supreme Court Sg(c) for that mandate

also the

sumrnary judgment, agatnst, a party

afLer

adequat,e time to make

discovery showlng

and upon rnotion" wi.th signlf icantly

who fails Id'. ;

probative

evidence. the

Anderson, Parcy to

477 u,s. go beyond

at, 250.

Rure 56(e)

requires

non-moving facts

the pleadings ls a genuine

and designate ieeue for or

"specific L+-

showlng

that

there

E,riaL. " implied moclon

Further, Rule 56 that the

t,here ls moving party negating

no express

requirement wiEh affldavltg rd. Rule

in

supportr its

or simllar 55 (a)

materials provide

the opponent's

claim.

and '(b)

EhaE parbles

may rnove for

eummary judgrnent where the on a

"wiLh or

without party

aupport,ing will bear

affidavite,r the burden of


L2

Accordingly, procf aL erial

non-moving

00134

dlspositsirre

lssue,

Bumillary judgment may be appropriate depoei0ions, anvters to

baeed

so1ely on Ehe pleadings, a n d a d m L e sL o n s o n fi l e .

lnterrogatories,

III.

Analvsis

A. The Whistleblower-,C1aim and WroJrqful rermlnation P l a l n t,l ff's Plalntlff for claime that fi rsE cwo clatm s ar e essentlally discharged Ehe am e. by Lambda

he wag constructively

reportlng

hlo concerns co Ehe NRC and for ineident, report

retueJ.ng to sign an of the behlnd rhe

inaccuraue

and frar,ldulent

in vLolat,ion policy

Ohlo Whistleblower ?[hietrebrower

St,aEute and the ohlo publtc The 9{histreblower

st,atuEe.

scat,ute provldes:

, .

. . '

A) (r) (a) lf an employee becomee aware in E,he course of E,he_employeers emproyment of _a viotation of iiitior federal statute oi any ordinance or regrulati"r-"i-o ""y p o l l tl ca l su b divieion that the em plpyee' s- employ."- fr .e authority to correct and if the employee reaeon;,btv b e l l e ve s th a c rhe violation either - r s- a er imini o ffe n se E h a E i s ltkely to cause an im m inent r iEi' of physical harm to persons or a hazard to publlc heaith or safety or is a felony, the emproyee oialry eh"li--noEify the employee's supervisor or other re3ponsible officer of the employeete employer of the vioiaifon=""a subsequenbly shall fl1e wlth Uhit supervisror or offlcer a wrl.tuen reporE thaE providee eufflcienE detall to idenrif,y and describe Lhe vioration. rf ine doeg noc correcu the violatioh "wioi"r or make a reasoiabie-and . good faieh ef,f,orE, to correct the violat,ion wftfrfntwenby-four hours af,ter the orar noE,lficatlon recelpt of Lh9 report, whichever is earlier, "i--trre the employee may flle a wrltEen reports thaE provides sufficienr derair. to ldenEify ind descriLe Ehe vlolaclon wlth the prosecuE.ing aut,hority of E,he countv or munieipar corporatlon ln whieh bhe vioracion occurred, wiE,h a peace g e n e ra l tf th e violatio g e n e ra l t s Ju rl e dlcELon, public offlclal or agen over E,he employer and t in which the ernployer ls engaged.,

13

00135
(b) rf an employee makeE a (A) (1) (a) of this eection, cwenty-four hourE after the or the report, waE receLved was received,

on the next regular businees aay totrowin! i["]a"i""" which Ehe oral-notifi;ation wae made or the
report whichever is later, qhatl

report, under diwigion thl employer, wiuhin oral not,iflcatior-*." made or by Ehe ctose-oi u"ui""".

t.hg -emp_loyerand Lhe industry,-lrade,'o, whlch the employer is eng.g.i. (3) If an employee becomes employee t s empl6yrnent oi a employee of any btate or fe

off tctal

not,lfy the employee., in-wriring, gf ?ny effort,'"i ;[; ' rE o co rre ct th e alr eged violation "ilii"y"" or hazar d, or o f th e a b se n ce of r he ar r eged violar i;; ;; f,izar a, (2) rf an employee becomes a$rare in the couree of the e mp l o ye e 'e e mpr olr m enr of a violar io" a[$r ;r - 3- ?;i, , 3734., 6109., or G111. of Ehe Rewised "i ,C o d e E f i i i = - " crirninal offense, . the employee directry may notlit,' either ora1ly or in wriringl any_ipp."iriate p"[iil

or agency-rhaE,haE-resir;'a;ry' aurrr"rl[v-Ji"=
busineEe in

'vLolation and subsequenE,ly s supervisor or officer a wlitten report that provldes su ffl cl .e n t d e ra il to ldenr ify an- Eesir iue Ehe vi o l a E i o n .

nquiry

reporred underuhac dlvreionT 35"Til.+353r:!nitr"


l4

or taken any other -

00136
actsion by the or reEaliatory disciplinary dl-vislon, not but, is limJ,ted uo, dolng any of Lnc1udea, employer the followingr (1) RemovLng or suepending the employee from employment; ' (Z) Wtchholding from the employee salary Lncreases or to whlch the employee otherwl,se is employee benefite . e n ti t,l e d r' (3) ?raneferring or reassigning che employee,(4) Denying the employee a promotion thaE otberwl-se would have been receivedl (5) Reduclng Ehe employee tn pay or position. ' (C) arr employee shall make a reasonable and good faith to deeerml.ne the aecuracy of, any lnformatlon effort (A) (1) or (2', of this report,ed under division ' section. If the employee who makee a report under eiuher of thoee divisione falle to make an effort oE that nature, Ehe employee may be subject to dlsclpllnary act,ion by the employeere employer, including Eugpension or remgval, for reporting J.nformatl.on wlthout a reagonable basis t,o do 5o under (e ) (r) or ( 21 of thiE eectl- on. d i vi e i o n (D) ff an employer takeE any dlEclpltnary or recallatory actlon against an ernployee as a result, of gtle employee's having f lled a report under divlslon (A) of thl.e section, the employee may brJ.ng a civil action for approprlate lnJunctl.ve rellef or for t,he remedlee (E) of E,hie sectLon t ot both, eet forth in division within one hundred eighty days after the dat,e the dieciplinary or ret,allaeory action was taken, in a court of, common pleas in accordance with the Rules of clvtl Procedure. A civll actLon under this division le not available to an employee ag a remedy for any dlsclplinarlz or retallaEory action taken by an appointlng authority againet the employee as a reEult, of. the employee's having filed a repori under divisLon (A ) o f se cE i o n 724,34I of the Revised Code.
Ohio Rev. Code S 4113.52. fn order to claim protecLion as a

whlstleblower, procedural 9 *,

an employee musd sErlctly of the Act.

comply wit,h the Fer(q

requirementE

See Cont,rer.as- v.

6 5 2 N . E , z d 9 4 0, a t s y l , ( g h l o 1 9 9 5 ) ,

15

::-

00137
to che terms of the e.atute, ln order to p r e v a i r o n a cl a i m u n d e r the gvhlstleblower Acc, a pr aintiff mus t eecablish that; 1, duri.ng Ehe course of his .emproyment he beeame aware o f a vi o l a u i o n of any feder lr ,' ;;;r ";' - or local sta tu te , o rd i nancef or r egul"li""- ir r it [i""*pr oyer had auEhority to correcii z. he reaeonably berieved, that the vioratlon was a cri mi n a l 'o ffe n se ltkeLy to cause an imm inent r isk physiear harm to-persoie, ' or a hazard Eo pubrtc eafeEy, or ie a fllonyl 1. he rnade a rea'onabre and, good faith effort co det'ermtne rhe accuracy of-any inrormi;r;;-r;;o!ced, 4 ' h e o ra l l y n o tifled the empr oyer of euch vior atlon; 5. he provided E,o Lhe empl0yer a written report with e u ffi ci e n r d er air r o iaeieity a"a- ieecr r ue the violacion; 5 . th e e mp l 0 ye r falled to *k.",a good faith correct such violation wJ.chin [w"ntllFor= a fte r n o ti fi ca tion; effor t t o houre According

of

3: ffgll!"3tEllLfi"*!1on
.9 . a cr a re e u l t." i _ !+ s r epor !, disctplinlry acclon- i6ii"!c re ta l l .a te d a g ainsr hiil. $eq geqerally o h i o R e v. C o de S 4113,s2,

to an approprr.ate asencv
tF" employer t.ook him or olhertrree

The Ohlo Supreme courE has also held for wrongful terminatlon

that, an.empl0yee of t,he se6 Kulch 2 (Ohio ter mlnation

may assert' a claim purrric policy v. Structurql Lgg'r.

in violatlon

embodlbd, withln

t,he whiEEreblcrber Act,

Fl_berg, fnc.,, 677 N,E.2d 30g, at syl, r n o rd e r E o p re va i r on a claim for wr ongfur o f p u b rl c p o rtc y, Ehe plar ntiff

ln v t o l a u l o n chat, '

muet demonetr a.e !


.\

16

00138
publie policy a clear and iE manifested exists ln a state or federal, consclLuclon, FUac,ute, or admlnietrative regulation, or in the common law;

2 . diernisEing

eruplayees under Lnvolved in Ehe plaintiff'e pol.icy; the public

the circumstances case would Jeopardize

the plainEif wae .moEivat,ed by f 's dismissal pollcy; reaeons relat,ed t,o the public 4. the def,endant lacked a legitirnate

Ju sctftca t,Lon Collins addlcion

for

dismleelng plalnelff

busineas

. In ca6e,

v. Rlzkana, 652 N.E.zd 553, GE?-59 (Ohto t99S). to proving f claims Ehe above elemenEE, wherer as ln thie he wae terminated in vLolat-l.on.o!

the plalntlf policy

the public

embodied tn che Whistleblo.wer Acc, he must also compliance with a nd wr itten the procedural requirements and a of

demonstrate strLct t , h e a cE , i .e ., o ra l

notice

to the.em ployer

to correct t,he vlolation. ggg KBlch, 677 'Thus, N.E.2d at 315, 323in thls partlcular caeer plaintlff,E whietleblower essentially clalm and PlaLnttf f ts wrongful t,erml.naEion claim

reasonable opportunity

presenE t,ha same element,s bo be proved,

AE noted above, Lambda argueE that plaintif,f cannot, . esE.ablish any of che elements of elther hls whistleblower claim or hiE wrongful shows,that Eermination cl.aim, Lambda argareE that the record

Plalntlff

was not termlnated

nor coneEructlvely

diecharged and, Eherefore, conducg, discharged, To che extent

he was not eubjecEed tro retallaEory platntiff was eoneEruet,lvely ie no cauEar connection whisfleblowl,ng dld actlv l ti ee. notlce

that

Lambda argruea EhaE, there and Platnr tffts

b e c w ee n th e d l sch a rg e

F-urthermore, Larnbda argues Ehat Plaint,iff


L7

noc provlde

00139
FufficienE, S 41L3.52 ' reasonable safety Eo stricrly Finally, belief comply r+ith Ehe procedural r.,arnbda argues Ehat plalnt,iff

requirements

of

dld not have a to public

uhat there was an irnrninent, risk plaintlff

b e ca u se th e N R C had noEified

uhat the ar leged bad material

flawed zJ-rconium teeting as goodBefore to clarify poliey

procedure could nou qualify

addregsing

Lantbdale arguments,

it

is necessary

the exact nat,ure of Pralntiff AlEhough plalnElff

's whlscleblowing/pub1lc the NRC Eo

clalms.

worked wlth

concernsr, iE appears to be undl_eputed thaE prior to plaintiffrs alleged conetructlve dlecharge, prevey wag unaware L h a r , p l ai n E i ff h a d b e e n in Eouch wit.h the NRC. Ther efor e, , p l a L n t i f f 's ) ca se w o u l d fair because lher e ig no r er ationehlp between his arreged terminaEion and, his report to ttre NRC.. see, E_rg-r.r , go3 F.2d 1064, 1056 ( 6 t h c l r - 1 9 9 0 ) (l n o rd e r to establish cr ar .m for r etaliat,r on rmret,ehow Ehat emproyer waE aware that h e e n g a ge d i n p ro E e cte d activlty) . It Ls not cer taln, however , plalntiff that re clatming E.haEhe wae terminaEed for repo'ttng hts concerns to t,he NRC. Rather, the clarms Beem t,o be rlrnired t,o the assertsion elgn the incident not'ifred zlrconium EhaE plaintlff report was termlnated for refueJ.ng t,o d"* n"a been whlch faleely under TitLe vrr, plalntiff

inveeElgat,e his

sEated that

of poeelble

sampre mounting problems with hts insisEence that

LambdarE of

t,eeEing and/6r

GEN be notified

18

00140
thac problem unable Ln accordance any other with 10 C.F.R. Pt' 21'3 The Cogrt of these is interpretation

co d,evelop

reasonable

ewo claims

based on Ehe pleadings of the claime,

before iE.

Based on that Lambda that

ingerpretation Plalntif

the eourt

agrees wlth

f did nots hold a reasonable belief cesting Therefore, procedures

t,hat, the Lambda'E to public on

zirsonium eafety.

posed an Lmminenc t,hreat

Bummary Judgment in lrambdats favor and public/pollcy claims ie

P1 a i n t i f ,f,s approbrtate.

w h i e t.l e b l o w e r

At this to lrambda zirconium

point,

the Court notes that

GEN contraited

out

teeting sa fety

purchase orderE wlch and wLchout a 10 advieor y. The pur chase or der for

C , F . R . P t,. 2 L n u cl e a r

t did ftle a complaln; The Courtr notee t.haE Plaintlff against, which he' wlth the NRC Bhat he was being retaliated Doc. No . 24 ' 10 & 10 n. 1 . w i t h d r e w , a n d th e n re tn B tated,. F does however, Ehat in ehie ca$e Platntiff rft" C"uri reigeratea, agal.net for fllLng a appear to allege that he wae retaliated ""r reporE witrh the NRC. 6 The advisory states:
TTREPORTING THE APPIJICABLE PROVISIONS OF 10 CFR PT 21' oF DEFECTS A\ID NON-COMPIJIAIICESn, APPIJY TO TIIIS IF 9ELLER REPORTS ANy DEFECTS TO THE NRC PRoC't REMEMI. UNDER PART 2I, THE SEIJLER SHAIJT CONCURREIflfLY FLTRNISH THE BTIYER TTITH A COPY OF jIHE ST'BI'IITTAIJ AT.ID AI.NT APPITICABLE DETAIL'S. FOR MANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WHICH ARE PI'RCHASED BY GENERAIJ ELECTRIC, FEDERAIJ REGUIATIONS REQUTRE THAT GENERAL ELECTRIC NOTIFY IfS SUPPITIERS OF THE REQUIREME}ITS OF SECTION 206 OF TIIE E}IERGY REORGAMZATIoN AcT oF L974 Al{D TITLE 10 OF TIIE CODE OF FEDERAL REGI'IATIONS.PART 21, BY STATING IN TTIE PURCITASE ORDER THAT IO CFR 21 APPLIES TO THE PROCUREMENT. THE PRODUCTS AllD SERvreEs To WHICH THIS REGUITATION AFPLIES ARE THOSB WHICH COULD, IF DEFECTI\IE OR NONCOMPITIAIiIT, CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICAIIT RADIOITOGICAL HAZARDS, 19

00141
t h e s a mp re w h i ch g a ve ri se c o n Ea i n a n u cl e a r to plaintiffr s concer ne did not

See Doc, No, 2ir , Ex. E. Therefore, Lambda cont,ende, plaLnttff dld not. have a reasonable belief thaE the tesElng errors presented i E,hreat to pubrtc safeEy' other The Court, notes, ordere however, Ehat plaintiff by GEI.Idid cont,iin wae aware thac a nuclear purchaee alert purchase

sa fe C y aler E,

submitted

safeEy ar'erE. order

Therefore,

the facE that

Ehe particular

Lhat gaYe notiee

of the problem dld not contal.n.Ehe

does not deE,racE from che reasonableneee of platnulff,s berlef EhaE the probrem courd pose a threaE to publrc safeEy. The Courts does agree. with Lambda, however, thaE, the NRC'!s conclusl.on EhaE nucrear safety was not threaEened by Lambda's arreged frar+ed proeedures dispelled any reasonabre belief Ehat r.arnbdawas vr-orac,ing 10 c,F,R. the defect with to GB[. rn reaching 1n the fierd pt . 2L by not r.te concrusions, of Ehe reporting

NRC coneulted ray difEracElon

one expert

testing

and one expert

zirconr.um arroy x_ r-n Eexture analysLe from a

'

MAIIy SUPPLTERS ARE NOT PRODUCTSA}rD SERVICES. NOT NORI,IAIJIJY BE ABIJE T DEFECTS OR NONCOMPLT.E,}I MAy'ISSUE A IJETTER TO DEFECTS, SUCH AS LACK . DESIGN SPECIFICATION W SHIPPED PRODUCT OR SER TO AppIJy, UPON REcEIpi GETNER.AIJ EIJECTRIC WIITIT l EVALUATTON AI{D REPORT 1 coMMISSroN, IF NECESSAI BECOMING A}VARE OF flTE I 10 CFR 21, GBNERAIJELE( uPoN RFQTTEST,

Sie Doc, No. 24, Ex. H-

20

00142
f u e l cl a d d l n g 4. d e si g n p er Epective. See Doc. No. 24, Ex. V, at, 3-

Both expertrs concluded not qualify

chat erroneous EexE,ure analye5,s bad material for good and, based on safecy had not

procedurds could those concluslone, been jeopardized. Ptaintift'.=

the NRC deLermtned that

nuclear

Thie should have been enough to ease

worries P l a i n E .i ff trieE that to m inimize the effect, of the N R C r e atre unEure

conclusion

by noting

the reporE Etat,es Ehat.nlfe

how GE Nuclear analysis Plaintsiff,

or Larnbda Researchte oEher cliente S e e id. at 4Ther efor e,

use the lexEure to

re su l t,g ,o

accor ding

the NRC's conclusion safety

was unrelLable

because lc could

not make a nuclear

determination

briEhouc knowing how GEN Af f . 1 Ze, pir s t, the

u s e d tH e d a ta p ro vi d e d P l a i n t i ff's clear

by L,ambda. See Plalnt,

a rg u me n t suffer s

fr or n two f1aws, however . is that to lts

impllcatlon

from the l.IRCre report

how GEN used the

data provided. by l,ambda was irrelevant C1ear1y, had a euch a factor evaluation, informatsion, irrelevant, it

deEerrnlnation. to the NRCre

been important

would have contacted lu dtd noE.

GEN to obEaLn more the data wae that rE

but

ThaE eEN's u6e of

to the NRC's conclusion

is emphasized by t.he fact to pursue plaintlff

the l{RC deEerml.ned t,hat it allegation p r o b l e me , Platntlff that it that

wae unnecessary

Larnbda refuEed to notlfy V, at 5.

GEN of

the tesbing

S g -g D o c. N o . 24, Ei, claims

Second, although the inforrnation as Larnbda

thaE the NRC did not have all determinatl.on, brief,

needed to make a reliable polnts out in its reply 2L

correctly

bhe NRCIs eover letter

00143
specifically Lnformed P1ainEiff t,hat lc would take no furtrher information Therefore, if Lnd,icating the NRc had

acEion on the maLt'er untess iE recelved t,hat its conclusion should be altered. atlegaEions,

m i s i n t e r p re t,e d sugget, it

P ra i n ci ff'E

as he now appear s co

waF lncumbent, upon him Eo correcE, the NRC'8 plainLiff,s he c C

m l e a p p re h e n e i o n a E th a E tim e, buE he did noE. fairure to follow-up with the NRC ind.icares that that

noE hold a reaEonable belief did not make a reasonable informat,ion waE accuraEe,

eafety was an l-se to deEermlne wheEl corrcluslon,

effort, Elther

trowever , - . f atal

t o t h e e e cl a l ms, Whlle Plalntlff rny immedlate fears bad materials analyeie texture admite that the NRc'e reporg "removed of

of, safet|

hazards caused by quatiflcation applicaciona

ln safet,y crttical

data, tt he claims analysis

due Eo bad Eexture chau hls concerne about ,ruse of bad etudles in design or

data in englneerlng reactor

development of nuclear a c E , i v i t i eB

safeEy relat,ed see plaint,

eomponents or other Af f . I zo

re ma l n e d u n re sor ved..h overlooke

PlalnEif f , however, consulted nuclear analysle

t,he facE thaE one of the experle by the NRC was. r'a,senior engineer of one of the maJor fabrleatlon companies who has experl.ence design per spectlve.,, in texture

fuel

fro m a fu e l

cl a d ding

see Doc. N o. iES

24, EX, V, ats 4. concluslofi,

Thus, it, le apparenf thag in reaching

the NRC examl,ned the iEsueE presented desl.gn viewpoint. Therefore,

by platntitf plalntif>remalned

from an engineerlng concern Ehat nuclear

safeEy from a deslgn standpolnc 22

z F l f r 6 ^ t t 6

00144
jeopardized report that by Lambdars Eesting Procedures despiEe to the the NRC'e exLent in failure in

was notr reasonably Plaintiff of refusal with

founded.

Aceordlngly,

t s whistleblower publte to pollcy nocify

and wrongful

termination

violatlon and/or

claims GEbf of Pt.

are baaed on Lambda's zirconium testing for

the

probleme summary

aeeordance judgment is

10 C.F.R.

2I,

tambdars tnotion

well-taken

and ie for in

GRiFTIIPED. consideratlon of being ls asked the to effecr, sign of a quality

Thus, Plalnelffrs . incident indicatlng

remaining

resJ.gnation report that falsely

ltght

ident.ifying

the problem of the

and falsely Although he refused to

GEN had beert notified tU ls to Plaintiffts

problem. Ehat

the Courc beLievee sign a report

credlt, that action

containing

faleehoodE,

was not Ohio public

proEected policy,

by elther

t,he ohio

llhletleblower

AcE or Acc

AB lndlcated'above, ie a potenElal

the Whistleblowei vlolation of

appll-es stater of

whenever there local Iaw.

federal,

Accordlng

Eo the Ohlo Supreme eourt,

publtc

pollcy.

can b found l-n E.he Ohio and Unlted Statee conEtitutl.one,


legislation, v. Gralev, adminlsErative 639 N.E.zd ru1ee, and the common law, In thie case, however,

51, 56 (Ohio L994).

iEieW!he*gua1it,yas9uranceincidentreport,Eare for internal puryoseE the reporbe only and thau Lamb<!g__[qE_n,ot required or governmental At m ost, it agency. to see

discrlbute

to any crient { +.

D o c . N o , 2 !,

E x, A , P revey Aff,

appear s that incident See p r ev ey

r.ambda wae required reports in o rd e r

to malnBal,n gualiE,y asurance it,a ISo cer tiflcationr 23

E o ma intain

00145
Dep. f aE 8-10. d e t e r m in e , vl o l a te Thus, L,ambdadid notr a n y feder ai, i n te rnally state, a false dEt far as the Court can

o! Ioca1 Laws by allegedl y gualtty asgur ance Lnci denc District fndiana courE publtc to

a Et e m p E ,i n gto f,i l e report. for

rn a cae with similar

facEs, the u.s. held that

E.he SouE,hern DlstricE was not vlolated

of fndiana

poricy falatfy

when an employer asked the plalnt,iff in order co show compliance ie volunt,ary v,

mainE,enance recorde

wigh ISO

9000 sBandards because ISO conpllance or sE,ate reguration is involved.

and no fed,eral

see Brlcker

Fed,,ere-r-Moqul Thus, the CourE

Corp., 29 F, Supp,2d 508, 9LZ (S.D,Ind. 1998). finds Ehat ohlo public pollcy trae not violated false gualtuy

when prevey asked assutranee incldent testlng.

Plaintiff report

to eign an allegedly relating

to the problems wlth

zirconium

Therefore, violation

P L a i n u i ff'E

a lleged constr uctive porlcy. Accordingly,

dLEchar ge was no t i n sumrnary judgments

of ohto pub.lic on this

in Lambdate favor

clal.m is approprJ.ate.

In Eumm&lY, for rnotion for

the reaEons Just sEated, Lambdare rs craims under the sununary Judgment on platntiff Acc and for policy wrongful t,ermination in violatton of,

Whistleblower Ohio ptrblic

is well-taken

and ls GRAIIIED. Those claims

are DI9lfitSSteD WfTB PREintDIcE. B, lntentionat P l a l n cl ffts actlone tnell th i r d caune oi action allegee that, Lambdafs lnflictlon of

Eowards PlalnElff distress.

's constit,uted

incent,ional

Under ohio Iaw, 't loJne who by ext,reme and outrageous conducE intentlonarly or recklessly .cauges severe emotional
24

00146
emotional dJ.ecress co another and if har m.,, is eubject to llablltcy harm to the other for results such from 4Sl emoclonal distrese, i t s , fo r su ch b o d i l y bodtly

See Ys.ager v. . Logal Union 20,

N . E .2 d 6 6 6 : 6 7 L (o h i o 1993) ( guoting Restatem enr ( Second) of T o r ts tf S 4 5 (1 ) (1 9 5 5 ) ). Ir iabilityr . howeVr , doeE noc actac h ev en or criminal, or even

t,he defendant'E

acEions were toitioue

mallclous

co a degree warranE,ing the imposition anothei tort. rd..

of puniEive the

damageo for alleged

RaEher, the act causlng

emotional

diitress

must have been ,rso exttreme and and so extreme in degree, as to go ae

outrageou,s in'characEer, beyond arr atrocl.ouB, poeslble

bounds of decency, and to be regarded intolerabre in a civiLlzed

and utEerly

community.'

rd.
The emoEional dLeBress t,he plalnt,iff b e y on d me re u p se t o r hur t 7 5 9 . 7 6 5 (Oh i o 1 9 8 3 ), severe and debilitat'lng constLtuued, dietress feelinge. euf,fers mugt go pauqh v. qanke, 451 N ,E.z d,

Rather ,

tshe em otional dl- etr ese Fr us t be a reasonable person, normally the ment,al rd. The

euch that

would be unabre Eo cope adequately wlth

engendered by tshe circumet,ances of the cage. doee not, however, have to be rhe plalntiff

mencal dj-sErees suffered accompanted by phisicat r e c ove r. fd .

inJ'ury ln ord,er for

to

Lambda argueE that thle elalm ie appropriate

summary judgrment in

ite

favor

on

because Prevey's Furthermore,

conduct waa neither summary the

extreme nor oulrageous. JudgmenE ia appropriate

Lambda arguea, showe that

because the record


45

00147
emotional d i sL re se a l l e gedly suffer ed by Plaint,tff ,s posiEion is was nel.Eher that pr ev ey ,s

s e v e r e n o r d e b l l .i ta E i n g , actions, chreats falslfy in making verbal of phyeicar re co rd s,

pr aintiff

and writt,en Ehreaee and accusations, ind in preseurl.ng plaintif,f uo

violence,

s c i e n Ei st-

w e n t to the cor e of his being as a r eeear c h p l a i n ti ff says thal Pr eveyr s act,l.onE wer e poten ti al l y evenbs whlch caused sreeplessnesg, and an LnsreaEe in blood pressure. weeks of _Seqplalnt.

career-breaking general faclgue,

Arf- f 2?.
The eourtr agreeE with d i e t r e sE cl a l me d b y P l a intiff fo support distrese. r,ambda that, the emotional sever e a nd, of wae no! eufflclenEly

debilitaEing emotionar

a clal,m for int,entlonal

infllcuion

As ind,icaced, pratnuiff

contende that and lncreaseci t.he same or . glrerruled on gther so? (1gg3), she wae havtng irnpresslon t,o esEablleh

Preveyre behawLor caused sleeplesenees, blood pressure. simlLar effecte Courts have held, hrere ineuff,icient

faElgue,

however, that t,o esuabltsh tn t9g9),

eevere and,

d e b i l i r ar,i n g

d l st,re ss.

For instance;

Natrs rng. Co., 081 F.zd 309 (6Uh Clr, qrgundE, st.

Marvf s Honor senter v, Hlcka, 509 u.s. that Ehe plainEiffrg withdrawn, uegutmony that and had a general

the Court held sleepleee

night,s,

felt

tshat she was not the same person waE insufflclent e e v e r e e mo tJ.o n a l d L E tre ss. f c e C r e a r nC o f p . , LCr . at 329. In.@

736 N.E.2d 30 (Ohlo Ct'. App. 1999), the CourE herd that che pralncLf f ,e test,imony .that she suf f ered from stress, had nightmares, and, EomeE,imes vomited on the way home
26

00148
vtas from wOrk ae a conBequence of the defendantts behavlor distr eEs ' i n s u ff,l cL e n E to e sta blish eever e and debtlica"ltt aC 34, In l rvn n v, A llled Cor p,, 536 N.E,2d 25 ( Ohio Ct' and hyster ical feel i nge, to Pur th er m or e, help or courEs

Id'

APP.

1 9 B z), rh e co u rE h e l d E,haEdletr aught crylng,

and elevatred blood pressure were lneufflcient se ve re e m oEional distr esE, EhaE Plaintiff fd. at 34.

c o n e tl tu te it

iE undispuced

did not seek profeeslonal acE,l.one. Many ohlo dlstress ls

counsel.l.ng as a resul-t

of Preveyrs

have he1d. that, Bevere or debilitaeing where the plaintiif UreeErnent.

not establlshed

does noE Eeek medl'caL or psychiatric v. fnternational Unlted Autso Workers

S-ee pickerson

(collect,ln$ cases); ljhion, 649 N.g.zd 40, 50 (Ohlo et, App. L994) s e e a l sg g 3 g 4 g , 8 9 1 F.2d al 318. Ther efor e, the Cour t fi nds that. , plaintiff emotlonal has falled dieEress to eet,abllsh severe and debillt.ating

bouh becauee t,he acE,ual s)mptoms he complains ln and of themEelvee to be eevere and did not seek rnedical or

of are insufficlent debilitaEing psychiatric

and because Plaintlff treaEments for hls

condition, summary judgment, aE to of emotiona l

Accordingly, p l a in ti ff disgrees 's cl a i m fo r

Lambdara moElon for intentl,onal tnfllcElon

ie tteIl-taken c,

and lE OR.ANIBD.

B.Eeach of Cont,rect and 3-romisEolY, Estoppel' four tsh and flf,ch causeE of action contracu and prornissory estoppel' claim alleges that an enf,orceable aes er t

P l a tn tl ffte clalme for plalnciffre breach of

breaclr of contract

ernployment contract,

beEween ptaintiff 27

and Lambda was formed when

Lambda made represenEations

that

it

operated,

and would

conE.inue

Eo operat,e an honesr organizaEl_on whleh cornpried wit,h arl. indusEry etandards. and all federar and state regulations thac it breached such conEracE by d.emanding that, ptalntiff ln vioration him for of appltcabi.e regulatione and parEicipaEe discharging

and

t,o ensure t,hat, Lambda adhered t,o those standards, The promissory estopper clalm alleges that Plalntif,f det'rimentarly relied, on r,ambda,s asurances EhaE lt ran an honest organization in deciding to accepb empJ.oymentthere. r-rambdaargues that appropriate summary Judgrment on thig because the record, demonsErates that employee at-willrn all honesty, Pl,alntiff rs rebuttal. elalm le plaintlff was an argument.

attempting

is hard co fo110r+, but he appears Eo suggesE t,hat the prevey,s ecatemenus that t',,imuaa complled wlth rso gooz and A2LA sEandard.s creat,ed cercain terms and condlUtons of hie empl_olzmentwhlch Lambda vioraEed when it arreged,ry const,ructively diecharged hlm. PralntifE ar.ao appear' to argue that the non-cornpetitlon agreernenE he eigned created, or at leasc suggesEe, Ehe existence of an empJ.oyrnenE contract. At' the outset, exEenE that, platntiff governed by a contracE, terminatron i n vro l a tro n the court notes in passlng that, .o the

clalms his empropent, at rrambd,a-wae he canno. aeert, a clar.m for of public por iey. see wrongtul

r
claim

D a r r l - sc o m o a n r . e s , 7 5 3 N . E . 2 d g g g , 9 0 6 - 0 ? ( o h t o cu. App. 200r). The wrongful cermination in vioratlon of public poltcy protects at-will employeee on1y, not employeee subject 28
E,o an

00150

emplo)rmentcontract''Id'Thus'alt'houghtsheCourtsrecogn izes ^S Fed' R' Clv' in che alternac'ive' plead Tnay Ehab a plaintiff P.8(e)(2),t}ret'wot)pegofclaimgaremuE,ual}yexc}usiveEothe extentthat,oneorbothiEcapableofsurvlvlngsunmaryJudgrrnent' Agageneralrule,ohiofo}lowstheemploymentat-will at any may termlnate an employee erq>Ioyer an in which 483

doctrlne

t i m e f o r a n y r e a s o n ( o r n o r e a s o n ) n o t , p r o h l b i t , e d b y l a w ' ' sPrintinq uchaS Co" wtere v' Dispatgh gee animus' becauEe'of, racLal employee ie ' conver sely' t' tr e 1985) (Oh i o 1 5 3 N . E. 2 d 1 5 o , g e n e r a l l y a l w a y s f r e e t o 6 e v e r t s h e e r n p l o } m e n t r e l a t l o n s h l p w i t h Ehe where additlon t'o the eituation rn Id' hls employer' employeeIsEerml-nationwouldvj.o]-atepublicpolicy,theohio

SupremeCourEhaerecognizedexcepbionstottleat.vlllemp}o yment 'The firat situatJ'on ie when Uhere is docErlne in trwo siguatlons' the trerms of contract which alters expresB or an J'mplied discharge.B.at154.T}reeecondatcuationiewhenE.}re emp).oyermakespromisegorrepregenlatlongt,oEheemployeewhich fallwit}rinchedoctrl'neofpromissoryeEEoPpeI..E*.ieeea}go 394 (obio ' 553 N'E'2d 381' 199s). In determining wtll have altered the ag-

whether the partieE the crier

enployment reLationship'

of facB should consider'

amongot'trerthlngs'Ehecharacteroft'heemployment''cusE'om'the courseofdeallngbeeweenthepartl.es,'companypol.icy,employee handboo}<s,ora}rePregentaEionsconcernl.ngjobgecurityin exchangeforperformance,oranyotlrerfaetorwhichshedeltght 29

00151
on the questLon. See Mers, 483 N,E.2d aE 103-04; H5ighl, 653

N.E,2d at, 384. fn conBract Prevey in wit,h that supporE, of hie contention point,e t,hat he had an employment made by

Lrambda, P1aintiff

eo represenEations

r,ambda followed

industry

sE,andards, wiEh Plaintiff publication

representaE,iong induscry was a rrgood and researeh. a quallEy facE that that he

a Lambda brochure

Ehat Lambda complled sEatemente that for

standards, fLcn

and Preveyrs

and would arso

have an opportuniEy pointe to the fact, his

Plain.t,iff astsurance eigned thle

uhat he slgned ducies and the

staEement

ouulining

a noncompetition whether

agreement. considered of fact the

The Court eingularly regarding evidence

flnds or

none of

evldenee,

colrecbJ.vely, of an

creaEeE a materlal emplol.menc contract. relles reasonably for For relieg, holds Doc'

iseue

t.he exietence

None of creates

on whl-ch plainttff would be

an expectation

t,haE plaintiff

terml-nat,ed

eauee only. inetance, the Lambda brochrire in generar eimply upon whiclr st,ates that plalntiff Lambda

No,

24 Ex, A,

a number of

cerEificatlone

and that

iE malnt,ains

a quallty

assurance program accredited noE outrine deecribing

by ISO.

The brochure,

however, doeg

any terms and, conditlone a progreeslve disclpttne

of emproymenE, euch ag system, provlding job security, for basee for

promotJ.on or advancement, promislng grounde for terminatiorr.

or outlining. oral

The Fame ie true

preveyrs

sEatementg regarding aseurance.

Lambdare alLeged commitment to quality rnay not be true

The facE Ehat theee represenEatione


30

00152
! ls, in Ehe Courcrs vf
in that they rel-ate only t.haE

Eo a method of dolng busine-he would keep hie job for

prornLse PlatnC,iff

meeting those etandards, was a 'tgood fit" that

Preveyte

statement, thatr Plal-ntiff only euggesEs that performlng the job,

is vague and at most, Plaintiff was capable of would liave the that this

Prevey believed

The promiee that and publish

Plaintiff

opporbunlt,y to

research

ie irnrnaterl.al in

lawsuit, ie noc abouB Plaintiff scholarly Pl a i n t i ff, works. whlle,

betng prevented

from. publishtng

aaBurance manuaL signed by D o c. N o . 2 4 , Ex. X, cover B t' alI aepecte of Company and malntenance proceduree of which tl impaet

tbe guality

Eeetsing, calibration, upon the runnlng t,he employee's

of the buslness and quality

eerrrJ.cesn and it

responsib.ility

in adhering to the proceduree,

too Bays noEhing Plainctff

about whether and in what circumst,ances Seg id.

's employmenc may be terrninated. F i n a IIy,

e , e x pre ssl y

th e noncom petition agr eem en!, Doe, No, 24, Ex . g ta t,e s: !

Eme].eyme$t -A!,,-WL].I.. This Agreement shaLl not conEtj,tuLe a contracE of employment, and.does not affecE !h" right of Company co termlnaEe the employment and Emptgye-e.i! time,- wit,h o.r withouts causel ai:a without f.iability "ryother than for any rrragea otrher t,han those earned by Employee Eo t,he date of-such E,ermination, rd. rndeed, the rule ln ohlo is that absen! fraud in E,he

i n d u c eme n t, su ch a d i sclaimer employment contract

negatee any cr aim thaE an, see.

was formed by the employee handbook,

w i n q v. A j n ch o r Me .. B ,._[r - td... oL,TeJ<as, r nc. , s7o N,E.2d 109s , 1099 ( o h t o tg 9 1 ) i T o h l L n e v. cenlr ar Tr ust co. , s49 N.E.2d L223, L227 31

00153

(ohio ct.

A p p . 1 9 8 8 ). ia

when a parcy

A clalm of fr aud in the inducem ent ar ises induced, co enE,er into an agreement chrough fraud r' sB M Ear ms.. r nc. v. woodq, 692 N' 8,2d 514,

o r m i e r e pre se n ta u i o n .

576(ohlo1998)'Acontract,orcontractualclauseobtalned voidable upon a ehowing of t,hrough .f raud in the Lnd,ucement is zio (ohto 1990). Harlqr v. Borror corp. , s3z N,E.2d, 207, fraud. or plainEiff, however, does not chatlenge Ehe vall'dity enforceability mere exlstence Ehe part,iee of Ehe emplo)rment'ac-wiIl ac-will of che empJ'oymenE clause' clause RaE.her' the le evidence that be at-wlll''

intended

uhat' the emproyment relaEionshlp

Eggl*.tcrntoghv.FoadwavExPresg.Inc.'640N.E.zd57o,s74(ohlo dld not actually cr, App. L99al i This is true even if Plainttff read or underEBand Ehe. disclaimer, Teqh.,Inc.,9 Therefore, plaintiff'e the parEies E' Kiel w. cirg]riE Deslqn

62N.E''2d'5L1,3tsyl'1(Ohioct'App'1988)' the insertlon of the emplolmenc at-wLll agreement 1g cornpelllng the emplolmenE relat'ionshlp clauee in evidence thab be at-will' the Court

non-eompeticion intended ttrat

Under the toEallty flnde that no evidence pl.aintiff,'e

of Ehe circumet,ances in t'hie case' from.whlch

a reasonable perEon could conclude

employment was governed by a contracB' clalm s favor in Lrarnbdat is

Therefore,

69nunary jud,gment on this

approPrlat,e ' As noE,ed above, Ehe second exceptJ-on to employrnent doctrine withln estoppel J.e when Che employer's estoppel d.oct,rine' In order

the au'-w111 fall

rePreEencations for

the promiesory to appLy,

promissory

the employer must' have made 6ome 32

00154
represenLationuponwhichtheemployeereaEonablyrelied,andif EtorwtrethelE'heexpect'edactionorforbearanceactuallyresulted fromthemisrepresentat,ionorwasldetrimentaltotheemployee. Although Plaintif 3' N'E'Zd aL 151' 8y1' 4 3 8 , M e r s . EgSi thathedetrimentallyre}ied.onPrevey'gagguranceEthatlambda uasallhonest'andt,echnica}lycomPeEenEorganizationlndeciding tosignttrenoncompdtJ't,ionagreement,aslJafiibdacorrectlypolnts l1-o'c' ernplc the aB-wll'l brief ' reply out in its f, arguee

concained

agreemen' ln the noncompetltion +'"tTit 6' |oqf"' $ee M cInEoEh' o n p r omi sso ry e e to p p e l ' 562N.E,2datS2:^.AccordlnglY,sumrnaryJudgrment.inLambda|E egtoppel claim is apProprlate' favor on the promissory trnsumrnar:f'theCourtfindsthatsuflrnaryJudgmentiE appropriateonPlaint,l.f,f,|eclairnsfgrbreach'ofeontractand promissoryestoppeL'AccordinglY'themot'ionforsummary judgmentaEt'othoseclaimsis'weII-tsakenandleGRAlwtED,Thoge
CIAiMS ATE DISMISSED WITH PREJSDICE.

Plalnt'lf

f t e r'anham Acc? clairn

alleges

trtrat

Lambda I s

The tarfiam Act Provldes

in pertlnen.

plrt:

33

00155
rol-srepresentatsions regtrlations and all that it complled with aII federal' him and sEate inEo accepting indusUry sBandards induced

enrplol.menc wlth raEher

Lambda and eigning dlrect,ly with

uhe noncompetiuion Lambda on hiB of starClng ownhis

agreemeRE Plaintiff olrn rnaUerials with

Ehan compete

sEaceE r,hab he evaluaE,ed the Eegr,ing bueiness, Lambda, buE found sEandarde sEandards, able to both the before coet of

option

and afUer hie complying wiEh

employment

ISO 9002 and A2LA wtEh Ehose

prohiblELve. plaintrtff

Had he rrot had to says that with

comply

he would have been L,arnbda. See Doc. No.

flnanclally. 24, at 34' claim


L,

compeBe dlrect,Iy that

Lambda argube

Eulnmallf Judgment is does not

approprLate bring of

on t,hig

becauEe Ftaint,iff the

have sEanding to

a cLairn under Lambda, does not and Lambda

Lanham Acts becauEe

he ie

noC a cOmpetit,or false

have a reaporrable has suf,fered thac clairn rhan plaintiff although ttrose

intere.st

in preventlng injury.

advertising, with

no coinmercial does no! the

The CourB agrees to assert are

have standing for

a Lanham AcC nore fundamenEal in the

grounds

such findlng in. fact

asserced

by Lambda and are of ArEicle III

rooted

sE,and,ing reguirement,E

of, Ehe ConstLtutlon'

good,s, services, P e rB o n , o r

or commercial activit,les

by another

(B)'tncommercialadvertislngorpromotsion' ml=represents t,he natsure, . eharacE,erLEtl'cs, qualiBlesr origln of his.or her or anogber pergonrg or gebgraphic -eelvJ-cee, or commercial' acclvitl'es' 9oo6", act!.on- ?y ?r,y person who J.n a civil shall be liable to be damaged he or Ehe ls or is'like1y iili hfiEves bY such act '

-r

15 U.S.C. S I12s (a) .


34

00156
A court may sua sponte raise a Plaintiff'E Aruicle III a cl a im s t a n d i n g e o a sg e rt ( 5ih clr ' 1 1 5 F '3 d L266' L26g -' ' , vvrrN' o n rn 'n R l1q\a e q.. c

Lgg7l '

The sEandi ng'


ar i r.rrl-ion

requirementsofertlclellloftheUnited,statsesConEtiuulion dictat'et}ratrtsherebealivecontroversyateachst,ageofthe In order t,o have scanding' Ln federal court' Iitigation plaintiffmugtmeetEhreeqeguiremental.l)theplatntiffmustr of a regarry fact - an invasron in inJury 'ave euffered the

protect'ed

interegtwhichieconcreEeandparuicu}arlzed,andactualand connection between the causal a be muat. t'trere 2) imminent, i must be of ' the lnjury complained conducts injury and Uhe and noE the acrr.on of Ehe defendanE charrenged the to Eraceabre resultof,theindependentactionofaomethird''n"=:"notbefore and no!'qrerely speculative' muet' be likel'y' it 3) and', courg; the by a favorable inJury wtll be redressed that uhe plaintiff'e 504 W i:ldlife' Ir ul4n v' Def,ender e of' co u rt' tkre fro m d e c i si o n U.S.555,560.61(1992).Adiecricucourtmaygrancsurnmar)f judgmentt,othedefendantw}rerethep}aintiff].ackeEtandingto v' Gen' contEacuors' of Am' Ass'oeiate4 9-r'91-,.r *s,' assert a clalm' A 812 (S'D'Ohlo 20Ol) '
I47 F- gupp '2d 864'

brief injurY

analYsJ-s of

plairitiff,s is noL a

eomPlalned of

tshat own argumenB llluEtrateE by result of any act'ion t'aken hiE o$tn

the

Larnbda. Plainuiff says that

he would have started

This at'at'ement waE Loo high. compliance of cos!' businesg buu tshe to oPeraEe -a materiale lnabllity Plbintiff' s E h a c l s a n a d mi ssi o n 35

00157
resE,ing laboraE,ory misrepresentations own lask of capigal. of results nof from Lambda's alleged of bhe L,anham Act has falled but to false from his the

ln violaEion Thus,

Plaintiff inquiry

saLisfy is Plaincif

second. paru craceable does t oi regardlese operation abouc its to

t,he standing

- thaE hts'tnjury the defendant' ' competslC'l-on with its

a challenSe.d

actlon

of

have of

t,he reE oureest Eo be in

Lambda of lied out of

wheCher Lambda mlsrepresented However, the fact that

methode

E,o hlm.

Lambda allegedly Plalntiff Plalntlff

comm|tmenC to

complJ.ance haa noL kept t,he Court f inde

the .bueinesrs. not have Artslcle

Consequentlyr' III standing

trhat

does

to Purs\re his in Lambdats

Lairham Act favor on this

claim. claim ie

Accordl.ng1Y, appropriate, Eherefore, is

summary judgment The rnotlon well-taken for

summary judgmenE G&AIVIED, This

on Chl's c!aj'm' claLm i DISI4ISSED

arrd is

?fI|r!I PREIN'DICE.

36

001s8
Conclugion for Inconcludion,theCourCfindEEhatLambdalsmot'ion BurnmaryJudgmentlswell-takeninallrespects.According}y,
motionforEummaryjudgment'(poc'No'21lieGRAlqfEDandthe amendedcompl.aintieDls}.tIssBDWITHPREin'DIcE-Asaresulcof ts motion Eo eubmlt' on auru'ary Jud,gment, Plaintiff the declsion Partofhlsexperttsreporcaf,EerthedigcoverYeutoffdater(Doc.

E.he

No. 20, lE MOOT'

In addition''Irarnbd'arg

motj'on to eErj"ke
I'IOOT,

Plaint,ifftesupplementalresponsebrief(Doc'No'31is ' THI9 CASE Ig CLOSED'

IT

IS

SO ORDERED

o^t" //'.1-? 1
Unifed St'aBes Dletrict

Judge

37

00159
ilLt-u

Counr KEHt{ErrTJ.'lunrHv Umrnn SrRrEsDISTRIcT


DISTRICT OF

JIJDGMENT IN A
lft!. CaseNumber:

c-1-00-661 rr*.

Jo*nEl -

-Caa;d-

its verdict' rendered

anil beve been bicdorheerd Theissues thcCourt. bcfore to trial or hearing came by Court, ThisBtion l{ Decislon basbecnrendcred' a decision AI.ID ADJTIDGED rT IS ORDERED IUDGMENTIDOC.zUGRA}ITED A}TDTHISCASEIS MOfiON FORSTJMMARY THATDEFEI'IDAI'TTS'

oFTHEcouRT[Doc' 32J' ro oRDER A;osEDtuRsuAI'IT

t-

33