[Cite as McNett v. Worthington, 2011-Ohio-5225.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
VAN WERT COUNTY
DAVID MCNETT,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, CASE NO. 15-11-05
v.
JERRY WORTHINGTON, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
Appeal from Van Wert County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. CV 09-10-518
Judgment Affirmed
Date of Decision: October 11, 2011
APPEARANCES:
David McNett, Appellant
Martin D. Burchfield for Appellee
Case No. 15-11-05
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant, David McNett (hereinafter “McNett”), pro se,
appeals the Van Wert County Court of Common Pleas’ grant of summary
judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, Jerry Worthington (hereinafter
“Worthington”). For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} On October 23, 2009, McNett filed a complaint against Nancy Moore
(hereinafter “Moore”) and Worthington, alleging that Moore and Worthington,
who were co-workers of his at Triumph Thermal Systems, Inc., made false
statements about him to co-workers and Triumph management, which ultimately
led to the termination of his employment. (Doc. No. 2). McNett’s complaint
asserted claims of defamation and interference with an employment relationship
against Moore and Worthington. (Id.).
{¶3} On July 29, 2010, Moore filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc.
No. 41). On October 4, 2010, the trial court granted Moore’s motion for summary
judgment, finding that: Moore had a qualified privilege to report to Triumph
management what she thought occurred at the workplace; and McNett was not
terminated due to Moore’s allegations but because of his conduct during and
following the employer’s investigation of the allegations. (JE, Doc. No. 49). That
same day, the trial court entered judgment dismissing all claims against Moore and
-2-
Case No. 15-11-05
certifying that there was no just cause for delay pursuant to Civ.R. 54(B). (Doc.
No. 50).
{¶4} On October 20, 2010, Worthington filed a motion for summary
judgment, arguing that he, like Moore, had a qualified privilege to make his
allegations about McNett to Triumph management, and that his allegations were
not the cause of McNett’s employment termination. (Doc. No. 51).
{¶5} On November 4, 2010, McNett filed a motion to strike Worthington’s
motion for summary judgment because Worthington did not file his motion by
August 1, 2010 as required by the trial court’s scheduling entry. (Doc. No. 53).
On November 9, 2010, McNett filed a motion for an extension of time to file his
response to Worthington’s motion for summary judgment if the trial court should
deny his motion to strike. (Doc. No. 54).
{¶6} On November 10, 2010, McNett filed a notice of appeal from the trial
court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Moore. (Doc. No. 55). The case
was assigned appellate case no. 15-10-13, but this Court dismissed the case for
want of jurisdiction under App.R. 4(A).
{¶7} On November 19, 2010, the trial court overruled McNett’s motion to
strike but granted McNett additional time to respond to Worthington’s motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. No. 56). On January 4, 2011, McNett filed his memo in
opposition. (Doc. No. 57).
-3-
Case No. 15-11-05
{¶8} On March 4, 2011, the trial court granted Worthington summary
judgment on the same grounds the trial court had previously granted Moore
summary judgment. (Doc. No. 58).
{¶9} On April 5, 2011, McNett filed a notice of appeal.1 McNett now
appeals raising two assignments of error2 for our review.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. I
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING
THE APPELLEE’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WHEN APPELLEE’S [SIC] DID NOT MAKE THE
REQUIRED DEADLINE AND DID NOT REQUEST ANY
TIME EXTENSIONS TO SUBMIT HIS SUMMARY
JUDGMENT MOTION AS EVIDENT BY THE PRETRIAL
STATUS CONFERENCE NOTICE.
{¶10} In his first assignment of error, McNett argues that the trial court
erred by granting Worthington’s summary judgment when it was untimely. We
disagree.
{¶11} “‘It is well-settled that a trial court has the inherent power to control
its own docket and the progress of proceedings in its court.’” Business Data Sys.,
Inc. v. Gourmet Cafe Corp., 9th Dist. No. 23808, 2008-Ohio-409, ¶21, quoting
1
Although it appears at first glance that McNett’s notice of appeal was beyond App.R. 4(A)’s thirty-day
deadline, the Clerk failed to note the service of the judgment entry on the appearance docket; and therefore,
service was not complete, and the time for filing the notice of appeal was tolled. See State v. McKinney, 3d
Dist. No. 4-11-01, 2011-Ohio-3521, ¶¶14-17.
2
McNett actually lists no assignments of error but only a “statement of issue” for review. Although App.R.
12(A)(1)(b) directs this Court to “determine the appeal on its merits on the assignments of error set forth in
the briefs,” we will, in the interests of justice, treat McNett’s “statement of issue” as two separate
assignments of error.
-4-
Case No. 15-11-05
Pavarini v. City of Macedonia (Apr. 18, 2001), 9th Dist. No. 20250, at *3, citing
State ex rel. Kura v. Sheward (1992), 75 Ohio App.3d 244, 245, 598 N.E.2d 1340.
As such, a trial court’s docketing decision is reversible error only if it amounts to
an abuse of its discretion. Id., citing Pavarini at *3, citing State v. Unger (1981),
67 Ohio St.2d 65, 67, 423 N.E.2d 1078.
{¶12} Civ.R. 56(A) provides, in pertinent part:
A party may move for summary judgment at any time after the
expiration of the time permitted under these rules for a
responsive motion or pleading by the adverse party, or after
service of a motion for summary judgment by the adverse party.
If the action has been set for pretrial or trial, a motion for
summary judgment may be made only with leave of court.
{¶13} The record indicates that an initial assignment conference and
pretrial hearing was scheduled for January 6, 2010. (Doc. No. 6). The record also
indicates that Worthington filed his motion for summary judgment on October 20,
2010, well beyond the trial court’s scheduled deadline of August 1, 2010. (Doc.
Nos. 9, 51). Since Worthington filed his motion for summary judgment after the
action was set for pretrial and beyond the trial court’s deadline, he was technically
required to seek leave of court first. Civ.R. 56(A). Nevertheless, the trial court
implicitly granted Worthington leave to file his motion for summary judgment by
overruling McNett’s motion to strike and granting Worthington’s motion for
summary judgment. (Doc. Nos. 56, 58); Carpet Barn & Tile House v. CSH, Inc.
-5-
Case No. 15-11-05
(June 5, 1997), 8th Dist. No. 71821, at *1-2, citing National City Bank v. Fleming
(1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 50, 54, 440 N.E.2d 590; Stewart v. Cleveland Clinic
Foundation (1999), 136 Ohio App.3d 244, 254, 736 N.E.2d 491. We cannot
conclude that the trial court’s decision to grant Worthington leave to file his
motion for summary judgment amounted to an abuse of its discretion.
{¶14} McNett’s first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. II
ALSO APPELLANT DID PRESENT EVIDENCE IN THE
RECORD AND ARGUMENT THAT SHOWS JERRY
WORTHINGTON DID MAKE AND PUBLISH FALSE
DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS WHICH CAUSED
INTENTIONAL EMPLOYMENT INTERFERENCE AND
TERMINATION FROM MY JOB.
{¶15} In his second assignment of error, McNett argues that the trial court
erred in granting Worthington’s motion for summary judgment because the
evidence demonstrated that Worthington’s false statements caused his termination
of employment. We disagree.
{¶16} We review a decision to grant summary judgment de novo. Doe v.
Shaffer (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 388, 390, 738 N.E.2d 1243. Summary judgment is
proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact, the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and reasonable minds can reach but one
conclusion when viewing the evidence in favor of the non-moving party, and the
-6-
Case No. 15-11-05
conclusion is adverse to the non-moving party. Civ.R. 56(C); State ex rel. Cassels
v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 631
N.E.2d 150.
{¶17} ‘“A cause of action for defamation consists of five elements: (1) a
false and defamatory statement; (2) about plaintiff; (3) published without privilege
to a third party; (4) with fault of at least negligence on the part of the defendant;
and (5) that was either defamatory per se or caused special harm to the plaintiff.’”
Davis v. Jacobs (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 580, 582, 710 N.E.2d 1185, quoting
Gosden v. Louis (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 195, 687 N.E.2d 481.
{¶18} The elements of tortious interference with an employment
relationship are: (1) the existence of an employment relationship between plaintiff
and the employer; (2) the defendant was aware of this relationship; (3) the
defendant intentionally interfered with this relationship; and (4) the plaintiff was
injured as a proximate result of the defendant’s acts. Lennon v. Cuyahoga Cty.
Juvenile Court, 8th Dist. No. 86651, 2006-Ohio-2587, ¶19, citing Costaras v.
Dunnerstick, 9th Dist. No. 04CA008453, 2004-Ohio-6266.
{¶19} If a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of defamation, the
defendant may then invoke a conditional or qualified privilege. Jackson v.
Columbus, 117 Ohio St.3d 328, 2008-Ohio-1041, 883 N.E.2d 1060, ¶9, citing A &
B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council
-7-
Case No. 15-11-05
(1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 1, 7, 651 N.E.2d 1283, citing Hahn v. Kotten (1975), 43
Ohio St.2d 237, 243, 331 N.E.2d 713. “Where the circumstances of the occasion
for the alleged defamatory communications are not in dispute, the determination of
whether the occasion gives the privilege is a question of law for the court.” A & B-
Abell, 73 Ohio St.3d at 7. The defense of conditional or qualified privilege applies
to all of the plaintiff’s derivative claims, such as tortious interference with an
employment relationship, as well as the defamation claim. A & B-Abell, 73 Ohio
St.3d at 14-16.
{¶20} “The essential elements of a conditionally privileged communication
may accordingly be enumerated as good faith, an interest to be upheld, a statement
limited in its scope to this purpose, a proper occasion, and publication in a proper
manner and to proper parties only.” Hahn, 43 Ohio St.2d at 246. If the
communication is privileged, the plaintiff may not recover unless he/she
demonstrates that the defendant made the statement(s) with actual malice, such as:
ill will, spite, grudge, or some ulterior motive. Id. at 248, citing DeAngelo v. W. T.
Grant Co. (1952), 111 N.E.2d 773, 776.
{¶21} Actual malice includes “‘acting with knowledge that the statements
are false or acting with reckless disregard as to their truth or falsity.”’ Jackson,
2008-Ohio-1041, at ¶10, quoting Jacobs v. Frank (1991), 60 Ohio St.3d 111, 573
N.E.2d 609, paragraph two of the syllabus. “The phrase ‘reckless disregard’
-8-
Case No. 15-11-05
applies when a publisher of defamatory statements acts with a ‘high degree of
awareness of their probable falsity,’ * * * or when the publisher ‘in fact
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.’” Id., citations omitted.
{¶22} The facts of this case are simple and undisputed. On or about May
11, 2009, Worthington reported to Triumph personnel management that his
supervisor, McNett, stood behind him in the restroom while he was using the
urinal, which made him feel harassed and uncomfortable. (Worthington Aff. at
¶¶3-4); (McNett Depo. at 44). McNett did not recall any other statements
Worthington made other than the allegation he made to Triumph personnel
management on May 11, 2009. (McNett Depo. at 63-66). Although McNett
testified that one co-worker, Terry Gibson, stated to him, “I heard you and
[Worthington] got into a fight and you were terminated for it,” McNett testified
that Gibson did not indicate that Worthington told him about the incident. (Id. at
71). In fact, McNett could not identify anyone who told him that Worthington told
them about the incident. (Id. at 72). McNett further testified that employees had a
right to file complaints against other employees, and that Triumph has a duty to
investigate the allegations. (Id. at 96-99).
{¶23} Although the evidence establishes a prima facie case for defamation
and tortious interference with an employment relationship, the evidence also
demonstrates that Worthington’s statements were privileged. That is, Worthington
-9-
Case No. 15-11-05
made the statements in good faith to Triumph’s personnel management during a
closed-door meeting to protect his interest in a harassment-free work environment.
Hahn, 43 Ohio St.2d at 246. McNett acknowledged Worthington’s right to report
his concerns to personnel management. (McNett Depo. at 96-99). McNett failed
to present any evidence that Worthington acted with actual malice other than his
bald assertions in his response to the motion for summary judgment. Notably,
even McNett’s affidavit fails to claim that Worthington acted with actual malice.
(Doc. No. 57, attached).
{¶24} Furthermore, with respect to McNett’s claim for tortious interference
with an employment relationship, McNett failed to demonstrate that
Worthington’s statements were the proximate cause of his termination. The record
indicates that Triumph terminated McNett for his “inflexibility, combativeness,
belligerence and questionable supervisory methods,” as well as his unwillingness
to take direction from his immediate supervisor or human resources counsel.
(Triumph’s Response to McNett’s EEOC Complaint and Kenneth Jackson Aff.,
Doc. No. 51, attached). Triumph stated that “McNett was not terminated on the
basis of statements made by anyone else. He was terminated based upon actions
he himself took, or did not take, that proved he was a poor choice of Supervisor at
Triumph Thermal Systems, Inc.” (Triumph’s EEOC Response, Doc. No. 51,
attached).
-10-
Case No. 15-11-05
{¶25} Since Worthington’s statements were privileged, and McNett failed
to submit any evidence that Worthington made the statements with actual malice,
Worthington was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both claims.
Worthington was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on McNett’s tortious
interference with an employment relationship claim additionally because the
evidence failed to demonstrate that Worthington’s statements were the proximate
cause of McNett’s termination of employment.
{¶26} McNett’s second assignment of error is, therefore, overruled.
{¶27} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
ROGERS, P.J. and SHAW, J., concur.
/jlr
-11-