In the case of Keehan v. Korenowski, 2017-Ohio-7050, an Ohio appellate court found that the plaintiff sufficiently alleged in his complaint that he provided oral and written notice to his supervisor regarding alleged criminal acts as to state a claim under the Ohio whistleblower statute.
This case involves allegations of “illegal, unethical, and unprofessional incidents” by a staffing company. Keehan at ¶ 4. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he witnessed (1) physical altercations between staffing personnel; (2) bribery; (3) tax evasion; (4) prostitution; and (5) illegal kickbacks. The plaintiff alleged that when he brought these issues to management’s attention his employer terminated him.
Ohio’s whistleblower statute – i.e., R.C. 4113.52 – protects an employee from disciplinary or retaliatory action for reporting violations of any state or federal statute or any ordinance or regulation that the employee reasonably believes is a criminal offense and that is likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm or a hazard to public health or safety or is a felony. In order to obtain this protection, the employee must first report the violation orally to his or her supervisor and, if this does not resolve the issue, file a written report that provides the supervisor with sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation. Strict compliance with these requirements is necessary in order to gain whistleblower protection.
The Ohio appellate court found that the complaint in this matter alleged sufficient facts to establish “strict compliance with the statute’s requirements” and permitted the case to proceed to discovery. Keehan at ¶ 24.
This case should serve as an important reminder that public officials must pay close attention to employee complaints regarding staff misconduct and other violations. While the supervisor may feel compelled to dismiss such reports as the mere grumblings of a disgruntled employee, the employee may be gaining whistleblower protections – not to mention the liability that the public employer may incur if the reports prove true.
To read this case, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.