[Cite as Price v. Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Prods., L.L.C., 2013-Ohio-2420.]
COURT OF APPEALS
LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DENNIS PRICE JUDGES:
Hon. William B. Hoffman, P. J.
Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. John W. Wise, J.
Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J.
-vs-
Case No. 12 CA 72
KAISER ALUMINUM FABRICATED
PRODUCTS, LLC
Defendant-Appellee OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil Appeal from the Court of Common
Pleas, Case No. 11 CV 1208
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 5, 2013
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JAMES R. COOPER TODD L. SARVER
MORROW, GORDON & BYRD STEPTOE & JOHNSON
33 West Main Street, P. O. Box 4190 41 South High Street, Suite 200
Newark, Ohio 43058-4190 Columbus, Ohio 43215
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 2
Wise, J.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant Dennis Price appeals the decision of the Court of
Common Pleas, Licking County, which granted summary judgment in favor of
Defendant-Appellee Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products, LLC, on appellant’s civil
complaint for wrongful discharge and age discrimination.1 The relevant facts leading to
this appeal are as follows.
{¶2} Appellant was formerly employed with appellee, a producer of fabricated
aluminum products, as a steelworker and, later, a supervisor in the company’s remelt
department. Appellant started with the company in 1973, but resigned in 1994. He
worked a couple of different jobs for a few years, but then came back as an employee
of appellee in 1998.
{¶3} In March 2011, appellee terminated appellant, then age sixty, following an
outside audit of the company’s computers and e-mail records. Appellee’s stated basis
for the termination was appellant’s violation of appellee’s computer use policy, as
further analyzed infra.
{¶4} On September 6, 2011, appellant filed a civil complaint against appellee in
the Licking County Court of Common Pleas, alleging wrongful discharge and age
discrimination under federal and Ohio law, as well as breach of contract and
promissory estoppel claims.
{¶5} On April 30, 2012, appellee filed a motion seeking summary judgment on
all counts in the complaint. On June 8, 2012, appellant filed a memorandum in
opposition to the summary judgment motion. However, appellant therein effectively
1
Defendant-Appellee was named in the underlying lawsuit as “Kaiser Aluminum &
Chemical Corporation.”
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 3
dropped his federal age discrimination claim on the basis of non-fulfillment of the
procedural requirements necessary to maintain such an action. On June 26, 2012,
appellee filed a reply in support of its motion.
{¶6} On August 28, 2012, the trial court issued a judgment entry granting
appellee’s summary judgment motion on all counts. The court concluded that appellant
had failed to present evidence of direct age discrimination, and that although appellant
had showed a prima facie case of age discrimination, he could not overcome
appellee’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for terminating him (i.e., using a
company computer to circulate sexually explicit material). The court also determined
that appellant failed to demonstrate a claim for promissory estoppel and that appellant
could not show the existence of a contract addressing the duration of his employment.
See Judgment Entry at 2-5.
{¶7} On September 26, 2012, appellant filed a notice of appeal. He herein
raises the following two Assignments of Error:
{¶8} “I. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN ITS DECISION AND
JUDGMENT THAT THERE WERE NOT GENUINE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT
CONCERNING WHETHER APPELLANT WAS THE SUBJECT OF AGE
DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF SECTIONS 4112.02, 4112.04, AND 4112.99 OF
THE OHIO REVISED CODE AND OHIO LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE
TERMINATION OF APPELLANT'S EMPLOYMENT BY APPELLEE.
{¶9} “II. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR IN ITS DECISION AND
JUDGMENT THAT THERE WERE NOT GENIUNE ISSUES OF MATERIAL FACT
CONCERNING WHETHER APPELLEE BREACHED AN EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 4
WITH APPELLANT AND WHETHER APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO RELIEF
UNDER THE LEGAL DOCTRINE OF PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL.”
I.
{¶10} In his First Assignment of Error, appellant (former employee) contends the
trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellee (former employer)
on appellant’s age discrimination claims under Ohio law. We disagree.
{¶11} Civ.R. 56(C) provides, in pertinent part: “ *** Summary judgment shall be
rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written
admissions, affidavits, transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact, if any,
timely filed in the action, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. * * * A summary
judgment shall not be rendered unless it appears from the evidence or stipulation, and
only from the evidence or stipulation, that reasonable minds can come to but one
conclusion and that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for
summary judgment is made, that party being entitled to have the evidence or
stipulation construed most strongly in the party's favor. * * *.”
{¶12} As an appellate court reviewing summary judgment issues, we must stand
in the shoes of the trial court and conduct our review on the same standard and
evidence as the trial court. Porter v. Ward, Richland App. No. 07 CA 33, 2007-Ohio-
5301, 2007 WL 2874308, ¶ 34, citing Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc. (1987), 30 Ohio
St.3d 35, 30 OBR 78, 506 N.E.2d 212. The party moving for summary judgment bears
the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis for its motion and identifying
those portions of the record that demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 5
material fact. The moving party may not make a conclusory assertion that the
nonmoving party has no evidence to prove its case. The moving party must specifically
point to some evidence that demonstrates that the nonmoving party cannot support its
claim. If the moving party satisfies this requirement, the burden shifts to the nonmoving
party to set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is a genuine issue of material
fact for trial. Vahila v. Hall (1997), 77 Ohio St.3d 421, 429, 674 N.E.2d 1164, citing
Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 662 N.E.2d 264. A fact is material when it
affects the outcome of the suit under the applicable substantive law. See Russell v.
Interim Personnel, Inc. (1999), 135 Ohio App.3d 301, 304, 733 N.E.2d 1186.
Direct Age Discrimination Case
{¶13} Under Ohio law, a prima facie case of age discrimination may be proved
either directly or indirectly. See, e.g., Peters v. Rock-Tenn Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 10,
903 N.E.2d 1256, 2008-Ohio-6444, ¶ 10. In order to establish a direct prima facie case
of age discrimination, an employee “ *** present[s] evidence, of any nature, to show
that an employer more likely than not was motivated by discriminatory intent.” See Hoyt
v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., Franklin App. No. 04AP–941, 2005-Ohio-6367, 2005 WL
3220192, ¶ 58; Mauzy v. Kelly Servs., Inc. (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 578, 664 N.E.2d
1272, paragraph one of the syllabus. If, however, the employee is unable to establish a
causal link or nexus between the employer's discriminatory statements or conduct and
the act that allegedly violated the employee's rights under the statute, then the
employee has not proved age discrimination by the direct method of proof.
Hershberger v. Altercare, Inc., Stark App.No. 2006CA00167, 2007-Ohio-1452, ¶ 62,
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 6
citing Byrnes v. LCI Communication Holdings Co. (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 125, 672
N.E.2d 145.
{¶14} Appellant first directs us to comments made by his supervisor, Dan Lilly,
on Lilly’s first day in that position in 2008. These comments were, in essence, simple
questions by Lilly as to how long appellant had been with the company and when he
planned to retire. See Price Depo. at 72. However, “[t]o establish direct evidence of
discrimination through a supervisor's comments made in the workplace, the remarks
must be clear, pertinent, and directly related to decision-making personnel or
processes.” Egli v. Congress Lake Club, Stark App.No. 2009CA00216, 2010-Ohio-
2444, ¶ 32, quoting Klaus v. Kilb, Rogal & Hamilton Co. of Ohio (S.D.Ohio 2006), 437
F.Supp.2d 706, 725-726 (internal quotations and additional citations omitted). Upon
review, we find reasonable minds could only conclude that Lilly’s brief and innocuous
inquiries in this regard did not establish direct evidence of age discrimination, as urged
by appellant.
{¶15} Appellant also contends that the record would show that other employees
impacted by the computer audit were given progressive discipline rather than
termination, as further detailed infra. However, "[d]irect evidence is evidence that
proves the existence of a fact without requiring any inferences." Rowan v. Lockheed
Martin Energy Sys., Inc. (6th Cir. 2004), 360 F.3d 544, 548. We agree with appellee’s
response herein that such actions by the company would potentially fall under the
category of indirect evidence of discrimination, rather than direct.
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 7
Indirect Age Discrimination Case
{¶16} Without direct proof of discrimination, an employee may establish a prima
facie claim of age discrimination indirectly by demonstrating he or she (1) was a
member of the statutorily protected class, (2) was discharged, (3) was qualified for the
position, and (4) was replaced by, or the discharge permitted the retention of, a person
of substantially younger age. Coryell v. Bank One Trust Co., N.A., 101 Ohio St.3d 175,
803 N.E.2d 781, 2004-Ohio-723, ¶ 20.
{¶17} In the case sub judice, appellant’s age puts him in a statutorily protected
class for his present claim (see R.C. 4112.14), and the fact of his discharge is
undisputed. He was a management employee without prior disciplinary action and was
generally performing the duties of his position. He was replaced by a person of
substantially younger age. Appellee herein does not dispute the existence of a prima
facie case. See Appellee’s Brief at 12.
{¶18} Upon review of the record, and in light of the aforesaid facts, we conclude
appellant has demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact as to a prima facie case of
age discrimination.
{¶19} We thus move on to the next step in the analysis. If a plaintiff establishes
a prima facie case of age discrimination, the burden shifts to the employer to provide
some legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the action taken. Hoyt v. Nationwide,
supra, at ¶ 59, citing Kohmescher v. Kroger Co. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 501, 503, 575
N.E.2d 439. If the employer establishes a nondiscriminatory reason for termination, the
employee then bears the burden of showing that the employer's proffered reason was
a pretext for impermissible discrimination. Owens v. Boulevard Motel Corp. (Nov. 5,
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 8
1998), Franklin App. No. 97APE12–1728, 1998 WL 886502; Cruz v. S. Dayton
Urological Assoc., Inc. (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 655, 659, 700 N.E.2d 675. The
employee must demonstrate that the employer's nondiscriminatory reason was false
and that discrimination was the real reason for the action taken. Wagner v. Allied Steel
& Tractor Co. (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 611, 617, 664 N.E.2d 987. Mere conjecture that
the employer's proffered reasons are pretextual is insufficient to withstand a summary-
judgment motion. See Surry v. Cuyahoga Community College, 149 Ohio App.3d 528,
2002-Ohio-5356, 778 N.E.2d 91, ¶ 24.
{¶20} Appellant admitted in his deposition that he had transmitted at least some
sexually explicit materials via his work computer during working hours. See Price
Depo. at 32-55. Many of them were sent by persons outside of the company, but
appellant forwarded them to some of his fellow employees. The audit revealed images
including nude women, male/female oral sex, female/female oral sex, and a link to a
website entitled “Boob Test,” which entailed multiple pictures of female breasts. On
February 23, 2011, appellant received another image of females engaging in oral sex,
in response to which he sent the following e-mail: “Friends, please don't send anything
like this to me anymore. The cocksuckers I work for are cracking down, fired 1 guy last
week for emails. It's been a good run.”
{¶21} Appellant has maintained that he did not forward emails to persons who
would be offended, nor did he send them to any female employees. However,
appellee’s reason for termination was based on its computer use policy, which
expressly prohibited "inappropriate use" and stated that the computer system "must not
be used to transmit any communications that contain *** [s]exually explicit material."
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 9
The policy also states in pertinent part: "Penalties for computer users who violate any
Kaiser I/T Policy may include immediate discharge or other disciplinary action as set
forth in Kaiser’s Code of Business Conduct ***.” (Emphasis added). Appellant and a
41-year-old co-worker were ultimately terminated; three co-workers ranging from age
35 to 61 were given written warnings; and four co-workers ranging from age 48 to 53
were given verbal warnings. Appellant does not herein assert that these three levels of
discipline were somehow unrelated to the level of sexually explicit e-mails or images
sent or received.
{¶22} Upon review, although a prima facie case of age discrimination was
initially established by appellant under Ohio law, we find reasonable jurors could
conclude only that appellee’s basis for termination of appellant was nondiscriminatory
and nonpretextual; thus, reasonable jurors would not find that appellant was subjected
to age discrimination via his termination. Therefore, we hold summary judgment was
properly granted in favor of appellee in that regard.
{¶23} Appellant's First Assignment of Error is overruled.
II.
{¶24} In his Second Assignment of Error, appellant argues that summary
judgment in favor of appellee was improper as to his claims based on breach of
contract and promissory estoppel. We disagree.
Employment Contract Claim
{¶25} Appellant first claims that summary judgment in favor of appellee was not
warranted based on his claim that appellee breached certain alleged contracts of
employment.
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 10
{¶26} Generally, under Ohio law, at-will employment relationships may be
terminated by either party at any time for any reason not contrary to law. Escott v.
Timken Co., 153 Ohio App.3d 529, 795 N.E.2d 64, 2003-Ohio-3370, ¶ 12, citing
Bucher v. Sibcy Cline, Inc. (2000), 137 Ohio App.3d 230, 235, 738 N.E.2d 435. There
is a strong presumption of at-will employment under Ohio law. See Mers v. Dispatch
Printing Co. (1985), 19 Ohio St.3d 100, 102-103. However, there is a well-established
exception to the at-will doctrine based on contract theory; in other words, an employee
may be able to establish that there exists “either an express or an implied contract to
overcome the presumption of an at-will relationship.” See Reasoner v. Bill Woeste
Chevrolet, Inc.(1985), 134 Ohio App.3d 196, 200, 730 N.E.2d 992.
{¶27} Appellant herein relies on two assertions of a contract for employment.
The first is language from his written employment agreements for non-bargaining
personnel, both of which deal largely with the protection of proprietary information and
intellectual property. The agreements, one in 1986 (when he became a supervisor) and
one in 1999 (after he resumed employment in 1998), both state in pertinent part:
“[Appellee Kaiser Aluminum] employs and shall continue to employ [Appellant] Price at
such compensation and for such a length of time as shall be mutually agreeable to
[Appellee] and [Appellant]." Upon review, we find this agreement language to be so
indefinite regarding such fundamental terms as salary, duration, and mutual
expectations that it cannot overcome the presumption of at-will employment.2
2
Although our research has uncovered no Ohio case law addressing the “as shall be
mutually agreeable” language, we note a California appellate court has interpreted
similar language as merely creating a contract of employment terminable at will. See
Malmstrom v. Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (1986), 187 Cal.App.3d 299, 316, 231
Cal.Rptr. 820.
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 11
{¶28} Appellant secondly relies on statements made by his plant manager, Eric
Engermeir, which appellant claims increased his expectations of continued
employment until his time of planned retirement. Appellant testified that when he told
Engermeir that he intended to retire at age 62, Engermeir responded that appellant
“wasn’t getting out before [Engermeir] did” and told appellant “you can’t leave me here,
I need you.” Price Depo. at 69. However, “ *** subjective interpretation of praise given
for [one's] work, leading to a personal but objectively unfounded sense of job security,
cannot alter in law the at-will nature of [one's] job status.” Reasoner, supra, quoting
Weiper v. W.A. Hill & Assoc. (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 250, 258, 661 N.E.2d 796, 801.
Moreover, appellant fails to explain how the Statute of Frauds (R.C. 1335.05), which in
Ohio covers an employment agreement for a period of more than one year (see, e.g.,
Soteriades v. Wendy’s of Fort Wayne, Inc. (1986), 34 Ohio App.2d 222, 224), would be
satisfied by the above isolated verbal statements of Engermeir.
{¶29} We therefore find no genuine issue of material fact in regard to appellant’s
contract-based claim.
Promissory Estoppel Claim
{¶30} Another exception to the at-will doctrine is based on the application of
promissory estoppel. Promissory estoppel is an equitable doctrine for preventing the
harm resulting from reasonable reliance upon false representations. GGJ, Inc. v.
Tuscarawas Cty. Bd. of Commrs., Tuscarawas App.No. 2005AP070047, 2006-Ohio-
2527, ¶ 11, citing Karnes v. Doctors Hosp. (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 139, 142, 555 N.E.2d
280. The party asserting promissory estoppel bears the burden of proving, by clear and
convincing evidence, all of the elements of the claim. In re Estate of Popov, Lawrence
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 12
App. No. 02CA26, 2003-Ohio-4556, ¶ 30. The elements necessary to establish a claim
for promissory estoppel are: (1) a promise clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2)
reliance by the party to whom the promise is made; (3) the reliance must be
reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) the party claiming estoppel must be injured by the
reliance. Schepflin v. Sprint-United Telephone of Ohio (April 29, 1997), Richland
App.No. 96-CA-62-2, 1997 WL 1102026, citing Stull v. Combustion Engineering, Inc.
(1991), 72 Ohio App.3d 553, 557, 595 N.E.2d 504.
{¶31} Appellant again directs us to the statements made by his plant manager,
Eric Engermeir, which appellant claims he relied upon as a promise of job security until
his retirement. However, even comments by an employer to the effect that an
employee has a secure future or position with the company have been found to be
insufficient to establish a clear promise for purposes of a promissory estoppel claim.
See Anders v. Specialty Chemical Resources, Inc. (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 348, 351-
52; Clipson v. Schlessman (1993), 89 Ohio App. 3d 230, 233-34. Furthermore,
appellant conceded that he did not have any other job offers and did not attempt to find
another job during his second tenure of employment with appellee from 1998 to 2011.
See Price Depo. at 71. As such, we find he cannot show reasonable, detrimental
reliance upon any purported promise. Furthermore, we find no merit in appellant’s
contention that the “[p]enalties *** may include immediate discharge or other
disciplinary action” language in the computer use policy created a reasonable
expectation that appellee would apply progressive discipline to a long-serving
employee.
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 13
{¶32} We therefore find no genuine issue of material fact in regard to appellant’s
promissory estoppel-based claim.
Conclusion
{¶33} The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on
appellant's claim of breach of employment contract and claim for relief under the
doctrine of promissory estoppel.
{¶34} Appellant's Second Assignment of Error is overruled.
{¶35} For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, the decision of the Court
of Common Pleas, Licking County, Ohio, is hereby affirmed.
By: Wise, J.
Hoffman, P. J., and
Delaney, J., concur.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES
JWW/d 0520
Licking County, Case No. 12 CA 72 14
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR LICKING COUNTY, OHIO
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DENNIS PRICE :
:
Plaintiff-Appellant :
:
-vs- : JUDGMENT ENTRY
:
KAISER ALUMINUM FABRICATED :
PRODUCTS, LLC :
:
Defendant-Appellee : Case No. 12 CA 72
For the reasons stated in our accompanying Memorandum-Opinion, the
judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, is affirmed.
Costs assessed to appellant.
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
JUDGES