In the case of Weiler v. DLR Group, 2023-Ohio-1221, an appellate court held that an employee could not sue a former employer as the employee had not pled enough facts to show that the former employer tortiously interfered with the employee’s subsequent employment or the employee’s attempts to gain further employment after the employee was fired from the subsequent employer.
In this case, the employee argued that the former employer tortiously interfered with the employee’s employment with the subsequent employer and other, prospective employment opportunities by (1) disparaging the employee when a prospective employer would call for reference purposes and (2) threatened the employee with unspecified “consequences” regarding an email that contained allegations of criminal behavior. In response, the former employer argued that (1) the employee did not state any specific prospective employers, nor did the employee state the former employer actually spoke with the prospective employers, only that the former employer may have spoken to the prospective employers and (2) the former employer expressed upset feelings over the email to the new employer and did not intend to interfere with the employment. The appellate court agreed with the former employer.
In support of its decision in favor of the former employer, the appellate court explained that the “vague and conclusory allegation is insufficient to establish a claim for tortious interference with prospective business relationships. [The employee] failed to include allegations identifying the existence of any specific, prospective business relationship that would have been entered but for the alleged interference.” 2023-Ohio-1221 at ¶ 20. The appellate court further explained that the allegations did not demonstrate that the former employer intended to cause the employee’s termination.
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.