In the case of Childs v. Kroger Co., 2023-Ohio-2034, an appellate court held that the supermarket did not act unlawfully in terminating a former employee when the supermarket discovered the former employee’s murder conviction.
In this case, the former employee argued that the supermarket (1) was estopped from terminating the former employee based on the murder conviction; (2) violated the terms of the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) when the supermarket did not follow certain termination procedures; (3) discriminated against the former employee on the basis of race when the supermarket implemented an action plan for underperforming employees; (4) retaliated against the former employee because the former employee reported a coworker for being a sex offender; and (5) that the supermarket defamed the former employee by purporting that the former employee did not disclose the murder conviction. In response, the supermarket argued that (1) the supermarket made no promise to not terminate the former employee for the employee’s criminal history; (2) the former employee was not a member of the union that signed the CBA; (3) the former employee was not qualified for employment due to the murder conviction; (4) the former employee did not show a connection between a protected activity and the termination; and (5) any statement was made between the supermarket and the former employee or between other employees, not the supermarket. The appellate court agreed with the supermarket.
In support of its decision in favor of the supermarket on the estoppel claim, the appellate court explained that, though promissory estoppel may limit at-will employment termination in certain cases, the former employee failed to present evidence of a clear and unequivocal promise from the supermarket stating that it would not terminate the former employee based on the criminal history.
In support of its decision in favor of the supermarket on the CBA claim, the appellate court explained that the former employee was no longer a member of the union when the former employee became an assistant store manager, and thus the termination procedures of the CBA did not apply to the former employee.
In support of its decision in favor of the supermarket on the discrimination argument, the appellate court explained that the former employee was not otherwise qualified for the position in question because the former employee’s murder conviction rendered the former employee unqualified for employment at the supermarket.
In support of its decision in favor of the supermarket on the retaliation claim, the appellate court explained that the former employee failed to establish a causal connection between any alleged protected activity and the former employee’s ultimate termination.
Finally, in support of its decision in favor of the supermarket on defamation claim, the appellate court explained that any communication and/or publication of statements made by the supermarket management did not constitute defamation because it was a matter of common interest between an employer and an employee, or between two employees concerning a third employee.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
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.