usdistctcasec1no00661

7/30/2019 USDistCtCaseC1No00661

1/38

00122IN TIIE IJ}TITED STAiES DISTIICT COIIRTFoR THE sourrrinN DrslRlcr oF ogroWESTER}T DIVISION

FII . :DKENHETHT}T,0l DECh PHU-5. : : ' , ' : , ' i . ifig!-,Hark J ' KeIIY PIaint i f f '

v E l ,Lambda Regearch, Inc'

Defendant '

), )i C a s e N o . C - 1 - 0 0 - 6 5 1)))))) ,

o R D E.B.Th ismat t e r i sbe fo re theCour tonDefendan t l , ambda

Regearch , I nc ' ' eMot l . on fo rS ummary . rudgmenE (Doc .No . . 21 )andMotion to strike Plalnt lf tra supplemental ResponBe to Motion for

Summary Judgment (Do:' No' 31)' Also before the Court is amot ion f i led by uhe Plaint i f f to f t le hts exper t tB repor t af t 'erLhe discovery cutoff date (Doc' No zil ' For the reasons setfortrh below, DefendantlE motrl.on for eummary Judgment ie well-

raken and i8 GRAIffED' Defend'ant 's 'nption to strike ie MOoE'P la l . n t l f f ' smo t i on to f i } eh ieexper t ' e repor t a fue r t hediscoverY cucoff date is MOOT'

r. BaqkqroundThep la tnu i f f i n t h i scase leMark i ' ' K e l l y ,P la inE l f f

i sac i t i zeno f t hesca teo f l nd ianaandho}dsaP hDdegree incheml.stry from the Univerel.cy of Cincinnat,i ' Amended Complaint {2. The Defendant in t 'his case iE La&da Research' fnc'( , ,Lambdan), an Ohio cor :poraEion with i ts pr incipal place ofbusiness located in Cinclnnatl ' ohio' IL L'arnbda s in lhehr :g j .neseofper fo rmingx . rayd i f f rac t lonmater ia lg teg t inq forlndusEr ial , government ' and academic cl iente' 3

Mt8.----F-


2/38

00123plaintiff began working for Lambda in .ruly 1998 as atechnician in Ehe x-ray diffraction laboracory, aleo known ae Lab

rr . rn December 1998, plainci f f was promoted to supenr isor ofLab ff. According to plaintiff, he agreed to go to work forr-rambda ecause iEs prestdenc and director of researeh, paurPrevey, assured him Ehat Lambda was in compliance wlth allindusE'ry sE,andards such as A2rAr and rso goo2.2 upon aeceptingthe Job at Lambda, plar.ntiff signed a non-competi ' ion agreementprecluding him from worklng in a compe.r.ng business for one fullyear following the termination of his employment. Se,Doe. No.24, Ex. C. Plainct f f Eay' , howevetr , chaE preveyrs aE,surancesthat Lambda adhered Eo ind.ustry etandard,g ti.rrned out eo beuntruer .praintlff etates that when he became supenrisor of r.abrr' he became awarr that there were signif lcanb problems wrth thewrirten procedures used to conduct certain teete rn that the"i3pJoi;";L::,"ll*^:3r^!I"_11:Ilrp Assocr.aron foriiiiiiFF-":';!'6*i;;i:rF*#"i#fsiii:Ei:i3:!:fecosnl'Llon of a1 grgi"ii.rlJ;;;-;;;t'ii'-"ortaEion ls formalcertrln eeJcJ. A raboratorw AFarad{ra,r=i] g:ypetency to p"riort:3?".ff:31:u'. x *:F:,t'"!8"ff5erlodrcprorlciency a;;r; ro mainfii"-ri5 ffS.hTt undegeqgdlg Arnerlcan .f.eeoci"tron f;;';J.1rr..,,-, n^^_-:. -+fiffi *IE:';l"y ;*;: *31':: ;ri: ii i:iJTlll3;..ffi""ornepaseFAe,hEp rzurnlaz a ""q ;i l:;T"+:ff:l.ie:.;lo, .Hii:.i:":" i;:"lg f3f^.*-l:I"f"lionar orsanr,zaE,ronfiL E"*H::*:*;1_" - a:. : r_li"3: 3.:ilHl"35Tllf;gxiF.Titi';I"*l. fiLi*:' , :i,i : _ii H'iiliff":"o"::3.; ;,15: i"1"d,fi : 13niu' * ";li;'":;i: il": n#; $ "egulaEory requireinenr;. -- ' iso ;;;;^i: 'rte&Es and all aoplicablesyicem roi pioduccion, insrar .r.rF ^- -*-T991 . qualiu! asrsuranceysEemI?= ploduccion, inetalf i t io",-" i . -"-ot t qual iLy asricernationli orsanizaEion re-r eFr-rr-rl_:sTi._ltg. seenEernationil orsaniz"cion-e;;-;i;;eJ;i senrrclns- geshtte i / "+nw,_iEo.fr- f;; i;; i;ai,I mrra,'al-., 't31!io! Holnepdg,ff:1l;isuuuenn Novembera


3/38

v 00124\procedures eiEher eould not be followed as writ,ten or tbtat theprocedures, when fol. lowed exactly, did noc produce rellable andaceurace test resulte. However, the part icular incidenE thatgave rise to thls lawsuLc oecurred in .7uly 19gg. 14 thqt month,General Electric Nuelear Energy (' ,GENn) eubmitted Eo rrambda threezirconium Eubing samples for x-ray diffracrion cesting, lambd.aperforined the tests and provided a report to GEN, GEN believedt'hat' the resulcs for one of Ehe samples appeared E,o be incorrectand requeeted Lambda recheck the Eest, After Lnveetigatl.on.Plalntlff discovered that, the technician performing t,he teEt.fatled t,o ensure uhac the sample wae flat on the mourrtingeurface' Because the eample was not flat, the test results wereskewed. s'eg Doc. No. 24, Ex. G. Al though in thls par t lcularcase, uhe c,echnician dld not forlow the written procedure,Plaint, i ff also dlscovered that even when the procedure wasfollowed verbatlm, begt, reeults could sometimes be

"r=or,"or"becauee t,he procedure itself did not ensure adeguate samplef latnees, seg i5[* Ex. s. As a reeurt of thls incident ,P1atntif,f became eoncerned that in the past Lambda had provldedto GEN erroneoust test results on zirconium tubing samplee subjectto 10 c.F.R- pt . 21rs nuc lear sa fe ty repor t , lng requl rements,3

ag used to make fuel rods for

-eeeDoe. No, 2L, Ex. E,


4/38

00125?herefore' Plaintiff recomrnended o Prevey E.hat Lambd,anogtfy GENof t'he potentiar problems wlch paBt zirconium arloy tesEs eo thatGEN could evaruate the geriousnessr of E,hesrcuaE,ion, ses rd.rn conjuneclon'wi th the erroneaus teet , plaint i f fprepared and submicted to prevey a draft Qualit,y Assurancefncident Report which deecribed the problem, a solution, andactions E,haEshould be taken. See id.- Ex. G. prevey, howev.er,dereted ttre recommendatlon Ehat GENbe nottfLed and inEtead wroteby hand that GEIrI ad already been notlf led-of Ehe probrem. seeid. The problem eo whlch prevey referred,, however, was not aproblem wit,h sample mounting, but rather an unrelated problem

reEarding 90 degree rotation about whleh GEN trad earlier beennot . i f ied. See pla inEi f f , Af f . . Doc. No, 24, Ex, B. I fS, preveyalso dereced a recommendaclon.Ehat t,he procedure for zr.rconiumtestlng be modlfied to ensure sample flacness. s,ee Ex. G;PLa lnr i f f A f f . t 15 .SubsequenE,ly, also in .TuIy Lggg, plaintif f dLecovered aproblem wluh the software used in zir 'conium text,ure anaryEiswhich also caused erroneous tesE results. plalnt. i ff prepared aeecond incident report deecribing both the eample flaEnessproblem and the problem with the soft\rare, and, recomrnending thaEthe eoftware be correcEed and thac GENbe not,Lfied of bobh

probleme' see Doc- No. 24, Ex. T. Accord,ing co prar.ntiff , whenpreeented with the Eecond incident report, prevey became angryand demanded t,o know r+hy hls earlier edits had noE beenincorporat'ed into Ehe report - prevey d,emand,ed haE. plaintif f


5/38

Err 00126make the changbe t.o Ehe reporE, but Plalncif f explalned that hecould not because t,he 90 degree rotatlorr problem wae not relatedto the incident. Prevey then took Ehe reporE. from Plalnt if f andEoId him not to braste any more time on iE, and not to discuss thelncident wit,h anyone else under penalE.y of terminatlon. SeeP 1a in t . A f f ' f L7 ,

Plaint, i f f says that fol lowlng his attempte to remedy'the probl.ems with the zlrconlum testing procedure, Prevey beeame

lrosclle E,owards him and threaEened, to f Lre him over Eeveral otherj-ncidents. In addit ion, in a performanee review dated Septernber28, 1999, Prevey rated Plalnt , l f f def lc lent in the areas of ,knowledge of the gualiuy aesurance syetem ar:d knowledge of x-raydi f f raceion, whereae three nonEhs ear l ier Prevey rated Plaint i f fh igh1y in E,hese areas. See PlainE. Af f . { 18 '' Belleving that Prevey wae attempting to cover up t,hez i rconlurn test ing problem, Fla int i f f contacEed the NuclearRegulatory CommLssion (' I I{RCn) Eo conduct, a Eechnica} evaLuatlonof the ieeue. Plaint if f had several diecuseLons wl,t .h NRCinvestlgacors over trhe nexe couple of monchs and provld,eddocuments to support the {nvest lgat , ion. See Plaint . Dep. 155-53.On December 161 1999, the NRC eenE to Plalnttf f a reportr and acover letter summarizlng it,s conclusione. fn pert l.nent, part, , Ehele tEef E ta tes I

Based upon our review and the informat,lon obtalned from' experEa, rrrebelleve t,hat the problerns wlbh LambdaResearch texture analysis may be at,tr ibuced to poorconcrol of epecimen preparation and texture analyelsprocedures. FurE,her, wE believe thac EexEure an-lyses[gic], ln general, cannot, be used to inadvertently


6/38


7/38

0012FJ.mplementsed-r Plaint if f says thac Prevey eonfronted him in Ehelab after hours and angrl ly demanded Ehat, Plaint, l f f admiE. that heand E,he 1ab technicians had intenEionally'bungled t,he zLrconiumt,esEing. During t,hie eneounter, which lasEed about a half hour,P laLnul f f cJaims Ehat Prevey "goE in face. r r The inc id,ent .culminaced wi th Prevey.plaeing in Plainc i f f re personnel f i le twomemosr r i t ica l of his per formance- pla inE- Aff . X 22.

Folrowing t,hab incidenr, plaint if f says Ehat preveyrsmistreatrnent of him continued. Prevey cont,Lnued t,o direcE angryouEburete at him and blamed him for not meeting unreasonabledelivery t imes promLsed to customers by prevey and, after cuEtingthe suaff Ln t,he ' lab froni f lve Eo two. rn addrcion, prevey beganinvorwJ.ng anocher managernen! emproyee, MLchael Glavlcrc, in rratI I , ef fectLvely , P la int i f f saysr, prepar ing Glav ic ic t ,o run hlsl ab . rd . f 23 .

on the nlght of February 24, 2ooo, prainEi f f prepared aIetter of reeignation because he believed that he would eit,her befired or forced to part icipat,e in a cover uB of the zirconLumtesEing.problems. on February 2s, .zooo, prevey presenued toPlainEiff an incidenE report, which sEated trhat GEN had alreadybeen not,ified of the probrem and d,emanded thac he sign itimmediat,ely with no changes to Ehe texE. ptrevey Ehen gave.plaint if f fLve mlnutee, and later, an hour to eign the report.

)


8/38

00129Plaintiff aays that at the end of the hour, when prevey refueedt 'o furcher discuss the si tuat ion, he submit ted his resignat ionrather than sign a repor! he knew to be un.rue. rd. { 25.on Auguet 15, 2000, plaint i f f f i red a f ive countcomplaint agatnst Lambda under ohlo raw for terml.naEion invr-olat ion of the ohio whist lebl0wer statuce, ohio Rev, cod,e s4113,25, 'wrongful terminat ion in violaelon of Ohto publ ic pof tcy,lnt,enfional intl ietion of emotlonaL d,lstress, breach of contract,and promiesory escoppel ' on January 31, zoo1t plaint t f f f l led anamended complaLnt whlch ad,d,eda elxth eause of action under theLanhamAct , 15 U.S.C. S 1125.

pollowing the close of dlecovery, Lambda fi led a motionfor summary judgment a6 co each of praint i f f re crar .ms. wlthrespecU Eo the whietleblower claim, Lambd,a rgues Ehat plaintlffhas no evidence that he wae subjected to dleelplinary actl.on forwhistleblowing because he reslgned and cannot estabrleh that hewas constructively diecharged. In any event, Lambda.argues, theevidence doee not establish a causal conneccion due to lapse oftr-me between the whletr.ebl0wing and the arleged. conBtructlvedischarge. Furthermore, Lambda argrues, plaintiff dld not saClefythe not ice requiremente of S 4113.82. Final ly, Lambda argueEEhat Plaintiff did not have a reasonabre bellef of lmminent riskof harm because Ehe NRC had already concluded, t,hat the erroneouazirconturn testLng did not pose a threat to eafety. Lambda argrueg' thaE summary JudgmenL on the wrongfur'termination in vioratlon of


9/38

00130i public policy t6 apPropriate for the same reasons as the

whisEleblower cIal.m.With respect to the intent,ional infl ict ion of emollonaldieErees cl,aim, Lambda argrues that BumrnaryJudgment ts

approprlaue because none of the actions PlalnUitf complalns about. amount to extreme or outrageous conduct. Furthermore, Lambda

EayB, there iE no evidenci that, PlainEiff suffered eevereemoE, ional dist rese, as lc is def lned under ohio law.

Lambda arslues thats sumrnary judgment on the breach of,contract claim is approprLate because PlainEiff waeran employeeab-wil1. f,ambda conE,ends t.hat summary judgment on the promissoryeetoppel claim is aPProPriate because PlainEiff, dld notdetrimentally rely on any promiseg made by Lambda. Finally,

j . Lambda argues thaU summary judgment on the Lanham Act, claim leappropriat,e because Platnclff ls not wlthin the clasg of personeneant to be protect.ed bY the Act.Plaintiff f i led a memorandum n opposit lon to l-rambdafmotion for summary judgment whieh relies extensively, tf notexcluelvIy, on hle own affldawiu, raEher than his deposit iontesgimony, t.o rebut Lambda's .argumenEg. S-eq,Doc. No. 24. In itsreply brlef (Doc, No . 27), Lambda argrues that Plalnt, i f f t eaffidavit conEradicte his deposit ion testLmony and that t.he Courtshould rejecE, conEideraEion of lc ln ruling on the sumnaryjudgmentr motrion. Atthough the local rules of civil procedurecall only for uhe fi l ing of a motion and supporttng brLef, amemorandurn1n opposltion to the rnotion, .and a reply brief ,


10/38

00131Pl.aint if f f i led a eupplemental reaponse Eo the motion for summary

. judgment (Dgc. No, 30) which arguea chat his aff ldavlu does notcontradict his deposit ion Eeetimony and that during hisdeposiulon defense counsel st,udiously awoided asking guestionswhlch would have fully developed the evidence. Lambda then fi leda motion t,o sE,rlke the supplernental brief (Ooc. No. 31) as belngin v io laEion of the local ru le eetabl iehing the br ief ing ofmot lons.

The outsEandlng mptions have been fully brlefed and arenow ready for dlsposit ion.

IL Summarv Judqment Standard of ReviewSummary Judgment is proper tt l f the pleadings,

deposi t ions, answers to lnterrogator ies, and admLseions on f l le ,together with the .aff idawite, if any, show t.hat there is nogenuine issue as to any materiaL facC and trhat Che mowing partyls ent lc led t ,o Judgment as a matcer of law.r t ped, R. Clv. p.56(c). fhe evidence preaented on a motion for sunmary Judgment

. is construed ln t,he light rnost favorable Eo the non-rnoving party,who le glven the benefit of al l favorable Lnferences thats can bedrawn cheref rorn, uni ted stat ,ee v. Diebold. lnc . , 369 u,s . 6s4(x962) . DThe mere ex letence of some ar l .eged factuar disputebeEween tshe partLes wirl not defeat an ocher$rlsl prop"rlysupported motion for summary judgmenti the requiremeng ls thatthere be no genuipe issue of matgrigl fact. n Anderson v. LiberEyLobby . I ne - , 47? U,S . 242 , 248 (19S 6) (emphas le ln o r i g i na l ) ,

10\ \\\II,l! ^ \


11/38

00133The CourE wil l noL grant summary judgrmenu unless it is

clear that a t r ia l is unnecessary, The threshold inguiry. todetermine wlreuher t,here ie a need for tr ial is whether t 'there areany genulne factual iesues thaE, properly can be reeolved. only bya finder of fact, because uhey rnay reasonably be resolved ln favorof e i ther par ty . t t Andereon, 477 u.s . at 250, There is no iseuefor trial unless there ls sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a Jury to return a verdict. for that part,y. rd.

The fact that the weighE of uhe evidenee favors themoving party does noc authorize a court t,o grant aummaryJudgment . Po lLer v . Jo lumbla Broadcas t inq Svs te lq , fnc . , 3Cg U,S ,464 , 472 (1962) , " [T ]he i ssue of mater ia l fac t requ l red by Ru le56@ . to enEi t le a par ty to proceed to E,r ial le not requi redto be resolwed eoncrusively in favor of che party asserE,ing itsexisE,ence; rather, arr t,hat, is required ie Ehat suf f ictenEevl-dence aupport ing the craimed factual dlspute be shown torequire a jury or a Jqdge to resorve t.he part iesr dif feringversione of the truth at, Lr ial . ' ,Serv i ce Go. , 391 IJ .S , 253, 288-99 ( f g6e)

Moreover, although eummary judgment muFE be used wlthextreme caution eince its operaE,es to deny a llt igant hls day incour t , FmLLhv. Hudson, 600 F.2d 60, G3 (Ot ,h Ci r . ) , cerq ld iemisse4 ' 444 u.s . 986 (19?9) . l he Uni ted States supreme Cour thae etaEed tsha.E he trleJurnmary Judgmerrcprocedure is properlyregarded not as a dlefavored procedural shortcut, but rather asan lntegral parE of t,he Federal Rulee as a whoJe, which are

1 1


12/38

00133deslgned to 'secure the jusE, speedy and lnexpeneivedeterminat ion of every act , ion. 1tr Celotex Coro, w. Cat r -gt - t - , 477U. S. 3L7 , 327 (f geg) , According t ,o Che Supreme .Court , theetandard for granting summary jridgment mirrorg the standard for adirected verdict, and thus rummary udgment is approprtate if themovLng parLy establishee that there is insuff ieient ewLdencefavoring the non-moving party for a jury to rec,urn a verd,l.cc fo rthat par ty . fd . aE 323 i A ndereon , 477 U.S . a t . 2S0. .

Accordingly, summary judgmenc ie clearly properrlagainst a part,y who fai l .s to make a ehowlng suff iclent toest ,abl ish uhe ex is tence of an element eesent ia l to the par ty 'scase and on'which thab party ,w111 bear the burden of proof att r ia l . ' t ce lo- tex co ro . , 477 u.s . a t 3zz . s tgnt f l canery , theSupreme Court a lso inet ructs that therr the pla ln language of RuleSg(c) mandate the enE,ry of sumrnary judgment, afLer adequat,e t imefo r discovery and upon rnotion" agatnst, a party who fails to makethat showlng wi.th signlf icantly probative evidence. Id' . ;Anderson, 477 u,s . a t , 250 . Rure 56(e ) requ i res the non-mov ingParcy to go beyond the pleadings and designate "specif ic factsshowlng that there ls a genuine ieeue for E,riaL. " L+-

Further, t ,here ls no express or implied requirement inRule 56 that the moving party supportr i ts moclon wiEh aff ldavltgor s iml lar mater ia ls negat ing the opponent 's c la im. rd. Rule55 (a) and '(b) provide EhaE parbles may rnove for eummary judgrnent"wiLh or wi thout aupport , ing af f idav i te, r Accordingly , where thenon-moving party wi l l bear the burden of procf aL er ia l on a

L 2


13/38

00134

dlspositsirre lssue, Bumillary judgment may be appropriate baeedso1ely on Ehe pleadings, depoei0ions, anvters to lnterrogatories,and admLesLons on f i le. I I I . Ana lvs i s

A. The Whistleblower-,C1aim and WroJrqful rermlnationPlalnt , l f f 's f i rsE cwo clatms are essent lal ly Ehe ame.

Plalntlff claime that he wag constructively discharged by Lambdafor reportlng hlo concerns co Ehe NRCand for retueJ.ng to sign aninaccuraue and frar,ldulent ineident, report in vLolat,ion of theOhlo Whistleblower St,aEute and the ohlo publtc policy behlnd rhe?[hietrebrower st,atuEe. The 9{histreblower scat,ute provldes:

A) (r) (a) lf an employee becomee aware in E,he course ofE,he_employeers emproyment of _a viotation of ""y i i i t i-or federal statute oi any ordinance or regrulati"r-"i-opol l t lcal subdivieion that the emplpyee's-employ." - f r .eauthority to correct and if the employee reaeon;,btvbel leves thac rhe violat ion ei ther- rs- a er iminiof fense EhaE is l tkely to cause an imminent r iEi 'ofphysical harm to persons or a hazard to publlc heaithor safety or is a felony, the emproyee oialry eh"li---noEify the employee's supervisor or other re3ponsibleofficer of the employeete employer of the vioiaifon=""asubsequenbly shall f l1e wlth Uhit supervisror or off lcer. a wrl.tuen reporE thaE providee eufflcienE detall toidenrif,y and describe Lhe vioration. rf ine "wioi"roeg noc correcu the violatioh or make a reasoiabie-and. good faieh ef,f,orE, to correct the violat, ion wftfrfn-, twenby-four hours af,ter the orar noE,lf icatlon "i--trre recelpt of Lh9 report, whichever is earl ier, theemployee may flle a wrltEen reports thaE providessufficienr derair. to ldenEify ind descriLe Ehevlolaclon wlth the prosecuE.ing aut,hority of E,hecountvor munieipar corporatlon ln whieh bhe vioracion. occurred, wiE,h a peacegeneral t f the violat iogeneral t s Jur ledlcELon,. public off lclal or agenover E,he employer and t' in which the ernployer ls engaged.,

13


14/38

00135(b) rf an employee makeE a report, under diwigion(A) (1) (a) of th is eect ion, th l employer , wiuhincwenty-four hourE after the oral not, i f lcat ior-*." madeor the report, waE receLved or by Ehe ctose-oi u"ui""".on the next regular businees aay totrowin! i["]a"i"""which Ehe oral-not i f i ;at ion wae madeor thereport was received, whichever is later, qhatl not, l fythe employee., in-wrir ing, gf ?ny effort, '" i ;[; " i l i i"y""o correct the al reged violat ion or hazard, or ' r-of the absence of rhe arreged violar i ; ; ; ; f , izara,(2) rf an employee becomes a$rare in the couree of theemployee'e emprolrmenrof a violar io" " i a[$r ; r -3-?; i , ,3734. , 6109. , o r G111. o f Ehe Rewised,Code Ef i i i= - "crirninal offense, . the employee directry may notl i t, 'either ora1ly or in wrir ingl any_ipp."ir iate p"[i i loff tctal or agency- haE,haE-resir;'a;ry' aurrr"rl[v-Ji"=t.hg

-emp_loyerand Lhe industry,-lrade,'o, busineEe inwhlch the employer is eng.g.i.(3) If an employee becomesemployee t s empl6yrnent oi aemployee of any btate or fe

'vLolation and subsequenE,ly ssupervisor or off icer a wlitten report that provldessuf f lc l .ent derai l to ldenr i fy an- Eesir iue EheviolaEion.

nquiry or taken any otherreporred nderuhac lvreionT 5"Til.+353r:!nitr" -l 4


15/38

00136dl-vislon, disciplinary or reEaliatory actsion by theemployer Lnc1udea, but, is not l imJ,ted uo, dolng any ofthe followingr(1) RemovLng or suepending the employee fromemployment;' (Z) Wtchholding from the employee salary Lncreases oremployee benefite to whlch the employee otherwl,se is. ent i t , ledr '(3) ?raneferring or reassigning che employee,-(4) Denying the employee a promotion thaE otberwl-sewould have been receivedl(5) Reduclng Ehe employee tn pay or posit ion.

' (C) ar r employee shall make a reasonable and good faitheffort to deeerml.ne the aecuracy of, any lnformatlonreport,ed under division (A) (1) or (2', of this' section. If the employee who makee a report undereiuher of thoee divisione falle to make an effort oEthat nature, Ehe employee may be subject todlsclpllnary act,ion by the employeere employer,including Eugpension or remgval, for reportingJ.nformatl.on wlthout a reagonable basis t,o do 5o underdivieion (e) (r ) or (21 of thiE eect l -on.(D) ff an employer takeE any dlEclpltnary orrecallatory actlon against an ernployee as a result, ofgtle employee's having f lled a report under divlslon (A)of thl.e section, the employee may brJ.ng a civi l actionfor approprlate lnJunctl.ve rellef or for t,he remedleeeet forth in division (E) of E,hie sectLon t ot both,within one hundred eighty days after the dat,e thedieciplinary or ret,allaeory action was taken, in acourt of, commonpleas in accordance with the Rules ofclvtl Procedure. A civl l actLon under this division lenot available to an employee ag a remedy for anydlsclplinarlz or retallaEory action taken by an -appointlng authority againet the employee as a reEult,of. the employee's having fi led a repori under divisLon(A) of secEion 724,34I of the Revised Code.

Ohio Rev . Code S 4113 .52 . fn order to c la im protecLion as awhlstleblower, an employee musd sErlctly comply wit,h theprocedural requirementE of the Act. See Cont,rer.as- v. Fer(q9 * , 652 N. E,zd 940 a t sy l , (gh lo 1995)

)I

15


16/38

I ::-

According to che terms of the e.atute, ln order toprevair on a claim under the gvhlst leblower Acc, a praint i f f musteecab l i sh tha t ;1, duri.ng Ehe course of his .emproyment he beeame awareof a violauion of any feder l r , ' ; ; ; r " ; ' -or localstatute, ordinancef or regul" l i ""- i rr i t [ i " - "*proyerhad auEhority to correcii

z. he reaeonably berieved, that the vioratlon was acr iminal 'of fense l tkeLy to cause an imminent r isk ofhysiear harm to-persoie, or a hazard Eo pubrtceafeEy, or ie a fl lonyl '1. he rnade a rea'onabre and, good faith effort codet'ermtne rhe accuracy of-any inrormi;r;;-r;;o!ced,4' he oral ly not i f led the emproyer of euch viorat lon;5. he provided E,oLhe empl0yer a written report witheuf f ic ienr derai r ro iaeiei ty a"a- ieecrrue thev io lac ion ;5. the empl0yer fal led to *k." ,a good fai th ef for t toorrect such violation wJ.chin [w"ntl lFor= houreaf ter not i f icat ion;

3: ffgll!"3tEllLfi"*!1onto an approprr.atesencv

.9. acr a reeul t . " i_!+s repor! , tF" employer t .ookdisctplinlry acclon- i6ii"!c him or olhertrreeretal l .ated againsr hi i l .$eq geqeral ly ohio Rev. Code S 4113,s2,

- The Ohlo Supreme courE has also held that, an.empl0yeemay assert ' a claim for wrongful terminatlon in violatlon of t,hepurrric policy embodlbd, withln t,he whiEEreblcrber Act, se6 Kulchv . St ructurq l F l_berg , fnc . , , 677 N,E.2d 30g, a t sy l , 2 (OhioLgg'r . rn order Eo prevair on a claim for wrongfur termlnat ionln vtolaulon of pubr lc por tcy, Ehe plarnt i f f muet demonetra.echat, ! .\

00137

16


17/38

00138a clear publie policy exists and iE manifestedln a state or federal, consclLuclon, FUac,ute, oradmlnietrat ive regulat ion, or in the common law;diernisEing eruplayees under the circumstancesLnvolved in Ehe pla int i f f 'e case would Jeopardizethe public pol.icy;the plainEif f 's dismissal wae .moEivat,ed byreaeons relat,ed t,o the public pollcy;

4. the def,endant lacked a legit irnate busineasJusct f tcat ,Lon for dismleelng plalnel f f .Co l l i ns v . R lzkana, 652 N.E.zd 553, GE?-59 (Ohto t99S) . Inaddlcion to proving Ehe above elemenEE, wherer as ln thie ca6e,the plalntlf f claims he wae terminated in vLolat-l.on.o! the publicpolicy embodied tn che Whistleblo.wer Acc, he must alsodemonstrate strLct compliance with the procedural requirements oft ,he acE, i .e. , oral and wr i t ten not ice to the.employer and areasonable opportunity to correct t,he vlolation. ggg KBlch, 677N.E.2d a t 315, 323- 'Thus, in th l s par t l cu la r caeer p la in t l f f ,Ewhietleblower clalm and PlaLnttf f ts wrongful t,erml.naEion claimessentially presenE t,ha same element,s bo be proved,

. AE noted above, Lambda argueE that plaintif,f cannot,esE.ablish any of che elements of elther hls whistleblower claimor hiE wrongful Eermination cl.aim, Lambda argareE that the recordshows,that Plalntlff was not termlnated nor coneEructlvelydiecharged and, Eherefore, he was not eubjecEed tro retallaEoryconducg, To che extent that platntiff was eoneEruet,lvelydischarged, Lambda argruea EhaE, here ie no cauEar connectionbecween the dlscharge and Platnr t f f ts whisf leblowl ,ng act lv l t iee.F-urthermore, Larnbda argues Ehat Plaint,iff dld noc provlde notlce

2 .

L7


18/38

00139FufficienE, Eo stricrly comply r+ith Ehe procedural requirements ofS 41L3.52 ' Finally, r.,arnbda rgues Ehat plalnt, i ff dld not have areasonable belief uhat there was an irnrninent, risk to publicsafety because the NRC had noEi f ied plaint l f f uhat the ar legedflawed zJ-rconium teeting procedure could nou qualify bad materialas good-

Before addregsing Lantbdale arguments, it is necessaryto clarify the exact nat,ure of Pralntiff 's whlscleblowing/pub1lcpoliey clalms. AlEhough plalnElff worked wlth the NRC EoinveeElgat,e his concernsr, iE appears to be undl_eputed thaE priorto plaintiffrs alleged conetructlve dlecharge, prevey wag unawareLhar, plainEi f f had been in Eouch wit .h the NRC. Therefore, ,plaLnt i f f 's case would fai r because lhere ig no rerat ionehlp )between his arreged terminaEion and, his report to ttre NRC.. see,E_rg- r . r , go3 F.2d 1064, 1056(6th cl r - 1990) ( ln order to establ ish crar .m for retal iat , ronunder TitLe vrr, plalntiff rmret,ehow Ehat emproyer waE aware thathe engaged in proEected act iv l ty) . I t Ls not cer taln, however,that plalntiff re clatming E.haEhe wae terminaEed for repo'ttnghts concerns to t,he NRC. Rather, the clarms Beem t,o be rlrniredt,o the assertsion EhaE plaintlff was termlnated for refueJ.ng t,oelgn the incident report whlch faleely sEated that d"* n"a been

not' i fred of poeelble sampre mounting problems with LambdarEzlrconium t,eeEing and/6r hts insisEence that GEN be notif ied of

18


19/38

00140thac problem Ln accordance with 10 C.F.R. Pt ' 21 '3 The Cogrt isunable co d,evelop any other reasonable interpretat ion of theseewo claims based on Ehe pleadings before iE. Based on thatingerpretation of the claime, the eourt agrees wlth Lambda thatPlalntif f did nots hold a reasonable belief t,hat, the Lambda'Ezirsonium cesting procedures posed an Lmminenc t,hreat to publiceafety. Therefore, Bummary Judgment in lrambdats favor onP1aint i f , f ,s whiet . leblower and publ ic/pol lcy claims ieapprobrtate.

At this point, the Court notes that GEN contraited outto lrambda zirconium teeting purchase orderE wlch and wLchout a 10C,F.R. Pt, 2L nuclear safety advieory. The purchase order for

t The Courtr notee t.haE Plaintlff did ft le a complaln;wlth the NRC Bhat he was being retaliated against, which he'wi thdrew, and then retnBtated, . F Doc. No 24 10 & 10 n. 1.rft" C"uri reigeratea, however, Ehat in ehie ca$e Platntiff does""r appear to allege that he wae retaliated agal.net for fl lLng areporE witrh the NRC.

6 The advisory states:THE APPIJICABLE PROVISIONS OF 10 CFR PT 21 ' TTREPORTINGoF DEFECTS A\ID NON-COMPIJIAIICESn, APPIJY TO TIIISPRoC'tREMEMI. IF 9ELLER REPORTS ANy DEFECTS TO THE NRCUNDER PART 2I, THE SEIJLER SHAIJT CONCURREIflfLY FLTRNISHTHE BTIYER TTITH A COPY OF jIHE ST'BI'IITTAIJ AT.ID AI.NTAPPITICABLE DETAIL'S.FOR MANY PRODUCTS OR SERVICES WHICH ARE PI'RCHASED BYGENERAIJ ELECTRIC, FEDERAIJ REGUIATIONS REQUTRE THATGENERAL ELECTRIC NOTIFY IfS SUPPITIERS OF THEREQUIREME}ITS OF SECTION 206 OF TIIE E}IERGYREORGAMZATIoN AcT oF L974 Al{D TITLE 10 OF TIIE CODE OF, FEDERAL REGI'IATIONS.PART 21, BY STATING IN TTIE PURCITASEORDER THAT IO CFR 21 APPLIES TO THE PROCUREMENT. THEPRODUCTSAllD SERvreEs To WHICH THIS REGUITATION AFPLIESARE THOSB WHICH COULD, IF DEFECTI\IE OR NONCOMPITIAIiIT,CONTRIBUTE TO SIGNIFICAIIT RADIOITOGICAL HAZARDS,

19


20/38

00141the sampre which gave rise to plaint i f f rs concerne did notconEain a nuclear safeCy alerE, See Doc, No, 2i r , Ex. E.Therefore, Lambda cont,ende, plaLnttff dld not. have a reasonablebelief thaE the tesElng errors presented i E,hreat to pubrtcsafeEy' The Court, notes, however, Ehat plaintiff wae aware thacother purchase ordere submitted by GEI.Idid cont,iin a nuclearsafeEy ar'erE. Therefore, the facE that Ehe particular purchaeeorder Lhat gaYe notiee of the problem dld not contal.n.Ehe alertdoes not deE,racE from che reasonableneee of platnulff,s berlefEhaE the probrem courd pose a threaE to publrc safeEy.

The Courts does agree. with Lambda, however, thaE, theNRC'!sconclusl.on EhaE nucrear safety was not threaEened byLambda's arreged frar+ed proeedures dispelled any reasonabrebelief Ehat r.arnbdawas vr-orac,ing 10 c,F,R. pt . 2L by notreporting the defect to GB[. rn reaching r.te concrusions, EheNRC coneulted with one expert 1n the fierd of zirconr.um arroy x_ray difEracElon testing and one expert r-n Eexture analysLe from a

20

MAIIy SUPPLTERS ARE NOTPRODUCTSA}rD SERVICES.NOT NORI,IAIJIJY BE ABIJE TDEFECTS OR NONCOMPLT.E,}IMAy'ISSUE A IJETTER TODEFECTS, SUCH AS LACK .DESIGN SPECIFICATION W' SHIPPED PRODUCTOR SERTO AppIJy, UPON REcEIpiGETNER.AIJIJECTRIC WIITIT lEVALUATTON AI{D REPORT 1coMMISSroN, IF NECESSAIBECOMING A}VARE OF flTE I10 CFR 21, GBNERAIJELE(uPoN RFQTTEST,S ie Doc , No . 2 4 , Ex . H-


21/38

00142fuel claddlng design perEpect ive. See Doc. No. 24, Ex. V, at , 3-4. Both expertrs concluded chat erroneous EexE,ure analye5,sprocedurds could not qualify bad material for good and, based onthose concluslone, the NRC deLermtned that nuclear safecy had notbeen jeopardized. Thie should have been enough to easePtaint i f t ' .= wor r ies

PlainE. i f f t r ieE to minimize the ef fect , of the NRCreconclusion by noting that the reporE Etat,es Ehat.nlfe atre unEurehow GE Nuclear or Larnbda Researchte oEher cl iente use the lexEureanalysis resul t ,g,o See id. at 4- Therefore, according toPlaintsiff, the NRC's conclusion was unrelLable because lc couldnot make a nuclear safety determination briEhouc knowing how GENused tHe data provided by L,ambda. See Plalnt , Af f . 1 Ze,Plaint i f f 's argument suf fers f rorn two f1aws, however. pi rst , theclear impllcatlon from the l.IRCre report is that how GENused thedata provided. by l,ambda was irrelevant to lts deEerrnlnation.C1ear1y, had a euch a factor been important to the NRCreevaluation, it would have contacted GEN o obEaLn moreinformatsion, but lu dtd noE. ThaE eEN's u6e of the data waeirrelevant, to the NRC's conclusion is emphasized by t.he fact thatthe l{RC deEerml.ned t,hat it wae unnecessary to pursue plaintlff rEallegation that Larnbda refuEed to notlfy GEN of the tesbingprobleme, Sg-gDoc. No. 24, Ei , V, at 5. Second, al thoughPlatntlff claims thaE the NRC did not have all the inforrnationthat it needed to make a reliable determinatl.on, as Larnbdacorrectly polnts out in its reply brief, bhe NRCIs eover letter

2L


22/38

00143specif ically Lnformed P1ainEiff t,hat lc would take no furtrheracEion on the maLt'er untess iE recelved information Lnd,icatingt,hat its conclusion should be altered. Therefore, if the NRc hadmisinterpret ,ed Prainci f f 'E at legaEions, as he now appears cosugget, it waF lncumbent, upon him Eo correcE, the NRC'8mleappreheneion aE thaE t ime, buE he did noE. plainLi f f ,sfairure to follow-up with the NRC nd.icares that he CnoE hold a reaEonable belief that eafety was an l-sedid not make a reasonable effort, to deEermlne wheEl cinformat,ion waE accuraEe, Elther corrcluslon, trowever - . f atalto theee clalms,

Whlle Plalntlff admite that the NRc'e reporg "removedrny immedlate fears of, safet| hazards caused by quatif lcation ofbad materials ln safet,y crtt ical applicaciona due Eo bad Eextureanalyeie data, tt he claims chau hls concerne about ,ruse of badtexture analysis data in englneerlng etudles in design ordevelopment of nuclear reactor safeEy relat,ed eomponents or otheracE, iv i t ieB remalned unresorved. .h see plaint , Af f . I zoPlalnEif f , however, overlooke t,he facE thaE one of the experleconsulted by the NRC was. r'a,senior engineer of one of the maJornuclear fuel fabrleatlon companies who has experl.ence in textureanalysle f rom a fuel cladding design perspect lve. , , see Doc. No.24, EX, V, ats 4. Thus, it, le apparenf thag in reaching iESconcluslofi, the NRC examl,ned the iEsueE presented by platntitffrom an engineerlng desl.gn viewpoint. Therefore, plalntif>-concern Ehat nuclear safeEy from a deslgn standpolnc remalned

22

z F l f r 6 ^ t t 6


23/38

00144jeopardized by Lambdars Eest ing Procedures despiEe the NRC'ereport was notr reasonably founded. Aceordlngly, to the exLentthat Plaint if f t s whist leblower and wrongful termination inviolat lon of publte pollcy claims are baaed on Lambda's fai lureand/or refusal to nocify GEbfof the zirconium testing probleme inaeeordance wi th 10 C.F.R. Pt. 2I , tambdars tnot ion for summaryjudgment is well-taken and ie GRiFTIIPED.

Thus, remaining for consideratlon ls the effecr, ofP la lnel f f rs resJ.gnat ion in l tght of being asked to s ign a qual i ty

. ncident report falsely ident. i fying the problem and falselyindicatlng that GEN had beert notif ied of the problem. Althoughthe Courc beLievee tU ls to P la int i f f ts credl t , Ehat he refused tosign a report containing faleehoodE, that action was notproEected by elther t,he ohio llhlet leblower AcE or Ohio publicpolicy, AB lndlcated'above, the Whist leblowei Acc appll-eswhenever there ie a potenElal v lo lat ion of federal , s tater oflocal Iaw. Accordlng Eo the Ohlo Supreme eourt, publtc pollcy.can b found l-n E.he Ohio and Unlted Statee conEtitutl.one,legislat ion, adminlsErative ru1ee, and the common law,v . Gra lev , 639 N.E .zd 51, 56 (Oh io L994) . In th ie case, however ,iE ieW!he*gua1 i t , yas9urance inc ident repor t ,Earefor internal puryoseE only and thau Lamb

23


24/38

00145Dep. f aE 8-10. Thus, L,ambdadid notr dEt far as the Court candetermine, vlolate any federai , state, o! Ioca1 Laws by al legedlyaEtempE, ing o f , i le internal ly a false gual t ty asgurance Lncidencrepor t . rn a cae wi th s im i la r facEs, the u.s . Dist r ic t courEfor E.heSouE,hern DlstricE of fndiana held that fndiana publtcporicy was not vlolated when an employer asked the plalnt, i ff tofalatfy mainE,enance recorde in order co show compliance wigh ISO9000 sBandards because ISO conpllance ie volunt,ary and no fed,eralor sE,ate reguration is involved. see Brlcker v, Fed,,ere-r-MoqulCorp . , 29 F , Supp,2d 508, 9LZ (S.D, Ind . 1998) . Thus, the CourEfinds Ehat ohlo public pollcy trae not violated when prevey askedPlaintiff to eign an allegedly false gualtuy assutranee incldentreport relating to the problems wlth zirconium testlng.Therefore, PLainui f f 'E al leged construct ive dLEcharge was not inviolation of ohto pub.lic porlcy. Accordingly, sumrnary judgmentsin Lambdate favor on this clal.m is approprJ.ate.In Eumm&lY, for the reaEons Just sEated, Lambdarernotion for sununary Judgment on platntiff rs craims under theWhistleblower Acc and for wrongful t,ermination in violatton of ,Ohio ptrblic policy is well-taken and ls GRAIIIED. Those claimsare DI9lfitSSteD WfTB PREintDIcE.

B, ln ten t ionat tne l lPlalncl f f ts thi rd caune oi act ion al legee that , Lambdafs

actlone Eowards PlalnElff 's constit,uted incent,ional lnfl ict lon ofemotional distress. Under ohio Iaw, 't loJne who by ext,reme andoutrageous conducE intentlonarly or recklessly .cauges severe

24


25/38

00146emotional dJ.ecress co another is eubject to l lablltcy for suchemoclonal distrese, and if bodtly harm to the other results fromits, for such bodi ly harm., , See Ys.ager. . Logal Union 20, 4SlN.E.2d 666: 67L (ohio 1993) (guot ing Restatemenr (Second) ofTor ts S 45(1) (1955) ). I r iabi l i tyr . howeVr, doeE noc actach eventf t,he defendant'E acEions were toit ioue or criminal, or evenmallclous co a degree warranE,ing the imposit ion of puniEivedamageo for anothei tort. rd.. RaEher, the act causlng thealleged emotional diitress must have been ,rso exttreme andoutrageou,s in'characEer, and so extreme in degree, as to gobeyond ar r poeslble bounds of decency, and to be regarded aeatrocl.ouB, and utEerly intolerabre in a civiLlzed community. 'rd.

The emoEional dLeBress t,he plalnt, i ff euf,fers mugt gobeyond mere upset or hur t feel inge. pauqh v. qanke, 451 N,E.zd,759. 765 (Ohio 1983), Rather , tshe emot ional dl -et rese Frust besevere and debil i tat ' lng euch that a reasonable person, normallyconstLtuued, would be unabre Eo cope adequately wlth the ment,aldietress engendered by tshe circumet,ances of the cage. rd. Themencal dj-sErees suffered doee not, however, have to beaccompanted by phisicat inJ'ury ln ord,er for rhe plalntiff torecover. fd.

Lambda argueE that summary judgrment in ite favor onthle elalm ie appropriate because Prevey's conduct waa neitherextreme nor oulrageous. Furthermore, Lambda arguea, summaryJudgmenE ia appropriate because the record showe that the

4 5


26/38

00147emot ional disLrese al legedly suf fered by Plaint , t f f was nel .Ehersevere nor debl l . i taEing, praint i f f ,s posiEion is that prevey,sactions, in making verbal and writt,en Ehreaee and accusations,chreats of phyeicar violence, ind in preseurl.ng plaintif,f uofalsl fy records, went to the core of his being as a reeearchscienEist - plaint i f f says thal Preveyrs act , l .onE were potent ial lycareer-breaking evenbs whlch caused sreeplessnesg, weeks ofgeneral faclgue, and an LnsreaEe in blood pressure. _Seqplalnt.Arf - f 2?.

The eourtr agreeE with r,ambda hat, the emotionaldiet resE clalmed by Plaint i f f wae no! euf f lc lenEly severe and,debil i taEing fo support a clal,m for int,entlonal infl lcuion ofemotionar distrese. As ind,icaced, pratnuiff contende thatPreveyre behawLor caused sleeplesenees, faElgue, and lncreaseciblood pressure. Courts have held, however, that t.he same orsimlLar effecte hrere ineuff, icient t,o esuabltsh eevere and,debi l i rar , ing dlst , ress. For instance; tn .Nat rs rng . Co. , 081 F.zd 309 (6Uh Cl r , t9g9) , g l rer ru led on gtherqrgundE, s t . Marv f s Honor senter v, H lcka , 509 u.s. so? (1gg3) ,the Court held that Ehe plainEiffrg uegutmony that she wae havtngsleepleee night,s, felt withdrawn, and had a general irnpresslontshat she was not the same person waE insufflclent t,o esEablleheevere emotJ.onal dLEtress. LCr. at 329. In.@fce CrearnCofp. , 736 N.E.2d 30 (Ohlo Ct ' . App. 1999) , the CourEherd that che pralncLf f ,e test, imony .that she suf f ered fromstress, had nightmares, and, EomeE,imesomited on the way home

26


27/38

00148from wOrk ae a conBequence of the defendantts behavlor vtasinsuf f , lcLenE to establ ish eevere and debt l ica" l t t d ist reEs' Id 'aC 34, In l rvnn v, Al l led Corp, , 536 N.E,2d 25 (Ohio Ct ' APP.19Bz), rhe courE held E,haE letraught and hyster ical feel inge,crylng, and elevatred blood pressure were lneufflcient toconet l tute severe emoEional dist resE, fd. at 34. Purthermore,it iE undispuced EhaE Plaintiff did not seek profeeslonal help ocounsel.l.ng as a resul-t of Preveyrs acE,l.one. Many ohlo courEshave he1d. that, Bevere or debil i taeing dlstress ls not establlshedwhere the plainti i f does noE Eeek medl'caL or psychiatricUreeErnent. S-eepickerson v. fnternational Unlted Autso Workersl j h ion , 649 N.g.zd 40, 50 (Ohlo et , App. L994) (col lect , ln$ casessee alsg g3g4g, 891 F.2d al 318. Therefore, the Court f inds tha

, plaintiff has falled to eet,abllsh severe and debil l t .atingemotlonal dieEress bouh becauee t,he acE,ual s)mptoms he complainsof are insufficlent ln and of themEelvee to be eevere anddebil i taEing and because Plaintlff did not seek rnedical orpsychiatric treaEments for hls condition,

Accordingly, Lambdara moElon for summary judgment, aE tplaint i f f 's claim for intent l ,onal tnf l lcElon of emot ionaldisgrees ie tteIl-taken and lE OR.ANIBD.

c, B.Eeach of Cont,rect and 3-romisEolY, Estoppel'Platnt l f f te four tsh and f l f ,ch causeE of act ion aesert

clalme for breach of contracu and prornissory estoppel'plalnciffre breaclr of contract claim alleges that an enf,orceableernployment contract, beEween ptaintiff and Lambda was formed whe

27


28/38

Lambda made represenEations that it operated, and would conE.inueEo operat,e an honesr organizaEl_on whleh cornpried wit,h arl.indusEry etandards. and all federar and state regulationsthac it breached such conEracE by d.emanding hat, ptalntiffparEicipaEe ln vioration of appltcabi.e regulatione anddischarging him for attempting t,o ensure t,hat, Lambda adhered t,othose standards, The promissory estopper clalm alleges thatPlalntif,f det'r imentarly relied, on r,ambda,s asurances EhaE lt ranan honest organization in deciding to accepb empJ.oyment here.r-rambda rgues that summary Judgrment on thig elalm leappropriate because the record, demonsErates that plaintlff was anemployee at-wil l- rn all honesty, Pl,alntiff rs rebuttal. argument.is hard co fo110r+, but he appears Eo suggesE t,hat the prevey,secatemenus that t',,imuaacomplled wlth rso gooz and A2LA sEandard.screat,ed cercain terms and condlUtons of hie empl_olzmentwhlchLambda vioraEed when it arreged,ry const,ructively diecharged hlm.PralntifE ar.ao appear' to argue that the non-cornpetit lon

agreernenE he eigned created, or at leasc suggesEe, Ehe existenceof an empJ.oyrnenE ontract.At' the outset, the court notes in passlng that, .o theexEenE that, platntiff clalms his empropent, at rrambd,a-waegoverned by a contracE, he canno. aeert, a clar.m for wrongtul

terminatron in vrolat ron of publ ic por iey. seeDarr l -scomoanr .es , 753 N.E.2d ggg, 906-0? (oh to cu. App.The wrongful cermination in vioratlon of public poltcyprotects at-wil l employeee on1y, not employeee subject

and

200r) .c la imE,o an

28


29/38

00150

emplo) rmentcont rac t ' ' I d 'Thus 'a l t ' houghtsheCour ts recogn izesEhab a plaintiff Tnayplead in che alternac'ive'

^S Fed' R' Clv'

P .8(e) (2) , t } re t 'wot )pegofc la imgaremuE,ua l }yexc}us iveEotheextent tha t ,oneorboth iEcapab leo fsurv l v lngsunmaryJudgr rnent '

Agagenera l ru le ,oh io fo} lowstheemploymenta t -w i l ldoctrlne in which an erq>Ioyer may termlnate

an employee at any

t imeforanyreason(ornoreason)not ,p roh lb i t , edby law ' ' suchaSbecauEe'of, racLal animus' gee wtere v' Dispatgh

Printinq Co" 483

N.E.2d 15o, 153(Ohio 1985) ' conversely ' t ' t re employee ie

genera l l ya lways f ree to6ever tsheernp lo}ment re la t l onsh lpwi thhls employer' Id' rn additlon t'o the eituation

where Ehe

employeeIsEerml -na t ionwou ldv j .o ] -a tepub l i cpo l i cy , theoh ioSupremeCourEhaerecogn izedexcepb ions to t t l ea t . v l l l emp}oymentdocErlne in trwo siguatlons'

'The firat situatJ'on ie when Uhere is

an J'mplied or expresB contract which alters the trermsof

d ischarge.B.a t154.T} reeecondatcuat ion iewhenE. } reemp) .oyermakespromisegor repregen la t longt ,oEheemployeewhichfa l lw i t } r i nchedoct r l ' neofpromissoryeEEoPpeI . .E* . i eeea}go' 553 N'E '2d 381 ' 394 (ob io

199s)In determining whether the partieE have altered the a

wtll enployment reLationship' the crier of facB shouldconsider'

amongot ' t re r th lngs 'Ehecharac tero f t ' heemployment ' ' cusE 'om' thecourseofdea l lngbeeweenthepar t l . es , ' companypo l . i cy ,employeehandboo}


30/38

00151on the questLon.N .E ,2d a t , 384 .

See Mers , 483 N,E .2d aE 103-04 ; H5 igh l , 653

fn supporE, of hie contention t,hat he had an employmentconBract wit,h Lrambda, P1aintif f point,e eo represenEations made byPrevey that r,ambda followed industry sE,andards, representaE,iongin a Lambda brochure Ehat Lambda complled wiEh induscrystandards, and Preveyrs sEatemente that P la int i f f was a rrgoodfLcn and would have an opportuniEy for publication and researeh.Plain.t, i f f arso pointe to the fact, uhat he slgned a quallEyastsurance staEement ouulining his ducies and the facE that heeigned a noncompetition agreement. The Court flnds that none ofthle evldenee, whether considered eingularly or colrecbJ.vely,creaEeE a materlal iseue of fact regarding t.he exietence of anemplol.menc contract. None of the evidence on whl-ch plainttf frel les reasonably creates an expectation t,haE plaint if f would beterml-nat,ed for eauee only.

For inetance, the Lambda brochrire upon whiclr plalntiffre l ieg, Doc ' No, 24 Ex, A, in generar eimply st ,ates that Lambdaholds a number of cerEif icatlone and that iE malnt,ains a qualltyassurance program accredited by ISO. The brochure, however, doegnoE outrine any terms and, conditlone of emproymenE, euch agdeecribing a progreeslve disclpttne system, provlding basee forpromotJ.on or advancement, promislng job security, or outl ining.grounde for terminatiorr. The Fame ie true for preveyrs oralsEatementg regarding Lambdare alLeged commitment to qualityaseurance. The facE Ehat theee represenEatione rnay not be true

30


31/38

00152!

l s , i n Ehe Courcrs v fEo a method of dolng busine--

in that they rel-ate onlyprornLse PlatnC,if f t .haE

he would keep hie job for meeting those etandards, Preveytestatement, thatr Plal-ntiff was a 'tgood fit" is vague and at most,only euggesEs that Prevey believed that Plaintiff was capable ofperformlng the job, The promiee that Plaintiff would liave theopporbunlt,y to research and publish ie irnrnaterl.al in that thislawsuit, ie noc abouB Plaintiff betng prevented from. publishtngscholarly works. whlle, tbe guality aaBurance manuaL signed byPlaint i f f , Doc. No. 24, Ex. X, coverB t 'al I aepecte of CompanyEeetsing, calibration, and malntenance proceduree which impaetupon the runnlng of the buslness and quality of t l eerrrJ.cesn andt,he employee's responsib.i l i ty in adhering to the proceduree, ittoo Bays noEhing about whether and in what circumst,ancesPlainctff 's employmenc may be terrninated. Seg id.

FinaI Iy, the noncompet i t ion agreemen!, Doe, No, 24, Ex.e, expressly gtat ,es: !

Eme].eyme$t -A!,,-WL].I.. This Agreement shaLl notconEtj,tuLe a contracE of employment, and.does notaffecE !h" right of Company co termlnaEe the employmentand Emptgye-e.i! "ry time,- wit,h o. r withouts causel ai:awithout f.iability other than for any rrragea otrher t,hanthose earned by Employee Eo t,he date of-suchE,ermination,rd. rndeed, the rule ln ohlo is that absen! fraud in E,heinducement, such a disclaimer negatee any craim thaE an,employment contract was formed by the employee handbook, see.winq v. Ajnchor Me..B, ._[ r - td. . .L,TeJ


32/38

00153

(ohio ct. App. 1988). A clalm of f raud in the inducement ar iseswhen a parcy ia induced, co enE,er into an agreement chrough fraudor mierepresentauion. r ' sBM Earms.. rnc. v. woodq, 692 N'8,2d 514,576(oh lo1998) 'Acont rac t ,o rcont rac tua lc lauseobta lnedt,hrough .f raud in the Lnd,ucement is voidable upon a ehowing off raud. Har lqr v . Bor ror corp . , s3z N,E.2d, 207, z io (oh to 1990) .plainEiff, however, does not chatlenge Ehe vall 'dity orenforceabil i ty of Ehe emplo)rment'ac-wiIl clause' RaE.her' themere exlstence of che empJ'oymenE c-wil l clause le evidence thatEhe part, iee intended uhat' the emproyment relaEionshlp be at-wll l ' 'Egg l * . t c rn toghv.FoadwavExPresg. Inc . '640N.E.zd57o,s74(oh locr, App. L99al i This is true even if Plainttff dld not actuallyread or underEBand Ehe.disclaimer, E' Kiel w. cirg]riE DeslqnTeqh. , Inc . ,9 62N.E ' '2d '5L1,3 tsy l ' 1 (Oh ioc t 'App '1988) 'Therefore, the insertlon of the emplolmenc at-wLll clauee inplaintiff 'e non-eompeticion agreement 1g cornpell lng evidence thabthe parEies intended ttrat the emplolmenE relat' ionshlp be at-wil l 'Under the toEallty of Ehe circumet,ances in t'hie case' the Courtf lnde no evidence from.whlch a reasonable perEon could concludethat pl.aintiff, 'e employment was governed by a contracB'Therefore, 69nunary jud,gment on this clalm in Lrarnbdat favor isapproPrlat,e -

' As noE,ed above, Ehe second exceptJ-on to the au'-w111employrnent doctrine J.e when Che employer's rePreEencations fallwithln the promiesory estoppel d.oct,r ine' In order for promissoryestoppel to appLy, the employer must' have made 6ome

32


33/38

00154rep resenLa t i onuponwh ich theemp loyeereaE onab ly re l i ed ,and i fE to rw t re the lE ' heexpec t ' edac t i onor f o rbearanceac tua l l y resu l t edf romthemis rep resen ta t , i ono rwas lde t r imen ta l t o t heemp loyee .EgSiMers. 438 N'E'Zd aL 151' 8y1' 3 ' A l though

Plaint i f f , arguee

tha thede t r imen ta l l y re } i ed .onP revey ' gagguranceE tha t l ambdauasa l l hones t ' and t , echn i ca } l ycomP eE enE organ i za t i on lndec id ingtos ign t t renoncompdtJ ' t , i onagreement , as l Ja f i i bdacor rec t l ypo ln t sout in its reply brief ' the aB-wll ' l ernplc l1-o'c'

concained ln the noncompetltion agreemen' +'"tTiton promissory eetoppel ' $ee McInEoEh' 6' |oqf" '562N.E,2datS2:^ .Accord lng lY ,sumrnaryJudgrment . i nLambda|Efavor on the promissory egtoppel claim is apProprlate'

t rnsumrnar : f ' t heCour t f i nds tha tsu f l rnaryJudgment iEappropr ia teonPla in t , l . f , f , |ec la i rns fgrbreach 'o feont rac tandpromissoryes toppeL 'Accord ing lY ' themot ' i on forsummaryjudgmentaEt 'o thosec la ims is 'weI I - t sakenand leGRAlwtED,ThogeCIAiMS AT E DISMISSED WITH PREJSDICE.

Plalnt'lf f t e r'anham Acc? clairn alleges trtrat LambdaI s

The tarfiam Act Provldes in pertlnen. plrt:

33


34/38

00155rol-srepresentatsions that it complled with aII federal ' and sEateregtrlations and al l indusUry sBandards induced him inEo acceptingenrplol.menc wlth Lambda and eigning uhe noncompetiuion agreemeREraEher Ehan compete dlrect, ly with Lambda on hiB own- Plaint if fsEaceE r,hab he evaluaE,ed the option of starClng his olrn rnaUerialsEegr, ing bueiness, both before and afUer hie employment withLambda, buE found the coet of complying wiEh ISO 9002 and A2LAsEandarde prohiblELve. Had he rrot had to comply wtEh EhosesEandards, plaintrt f f says that he would have been flnanclally.able to compeBe dlrect,Iy with L,arnbda. See Doc. No. 24, at 34'Lambda argube that Eulnmallf Judgment is approprLate on t,hig claimbecauEe Ftaint, i f f does not have sEanding to bring a cLairn underthe Lanham Acts becauEe he ie noC a cOmpetit,or of Lambda, does nothave a reaporrable intere.st in preventlng false advert ising, andhas suf,fered no coinmercial injury. The CourB agrees with Lambda

thac plaintiff does no! have standing to asserta Lanham AcC

clairn although the grounds for such findlng are nore fundamenEalrhan ttrose asserced by Lambda and are in . fact rooted in thesE,and,ing reguirement,E of ArEicle III of, Ehe ConstLtut lon'

good,s, services, or commercial activit, les by anotherPerBon, or(B) ' t ncommerc ia ladver t i s lngorpromots ion 'ml=represents t,he natsure, .eharacE,erLEtl 'cs, qualiBlesr. or gebgraphic origln of his.or her or anogber pergonrg9oo6", -eelvJ-cee, or commercial ' acclvit l 'es'shall be liable J.n a civil act!.on- ?y ?r,y person whohfiEves ii l i he or Ehe ls or is' l ike1y to be damagedbY such act '

15 U. S .C. S I12s (a) .34


35/38

00156A court may sua sponte ra ise a Pla int i f f 'E Aru ic le

I I I

standing eo asgert a claimReq. conrn'n, 115 F'3d L266' L26g

(5ih cl r ' Lgg7l The sEanding'ar i r . r r l - ion1q\a . vvrrN' -' '

requ i rementso fer t l c le l l l o f theUni ted ,s ta tsesConEt iuu l i ond ic ta t 'e t } ra t r t sherebea l i vecont roversyateachst ,ageof theIit igation Ln federal court ' In order t,o have scanding'

the

p la in t i f fmugtmeetEhreeqegu i rementa l . l ) t hep la tn t i f fmust r'ave euffered inJury in fact - an invasron of a regarry

protect'ed

in te reg twh ich ieconcreEeandparu icu}ar l zed,andactua landimminent, 2) t'trere muat. be a causal connection between theinjury and Uhe conducts complained of ' the lnjury must

be

Eraceabre to the charrenged acrr.on of Ehe defendanEand noE the

resu l to f , the independentac t ionofaometh i rd ' ' n "= : "no tbe forethe courg; and', 3) it muet' be likel 'y' and no!'qrerely speculative'that uhe plaintiff 'e inJury wtll be redressed by a favorable

decision from tkrecourt ' I rul4n v' Def ,endereof ' Wi : ld l i fe ' 504

U.S.555,560.61(1992) .Ad iecr i cucour tmaygrancsurnmar ) fj udgment t ,o thedefendantw} rere thep}a in t i f f ] . ackeEtand ing toassert a clalm' *s,' 9-r '91-,.rss'oeiate4 Gen' contEacuors'

of Am' v'I 47 F- gupp '2d 864 ' 812 (S 'D 'Ohlo 20O l ) ' A

brief analYsJ-s ofinjurY eomPlalnedLarnbda.

Plainuiff says that he would havebusinesg buu tshe cos!' of compliance waE Lools an admission Ehac Plbint i f f 's lnabl l i ty

plair it i f f ,s own argumenB ll luEtrateE tshat theof is noL a result of any act'ion t'aken by

started hiE o$tnhigh. This at'at'emen

to oPeraEe -a materiale

35


36/38

00157resE, ing laboraE,ory resul ts nof f rom Lambda's al leged falsemisrepresentations ln violaEion of bhe L,anham Act but from hisown lask of capigal . Thus, P la int i f f has fa l led to saLis fy thesecond. paru of t,he standing inquiry - thaE hts' tnjury iscraceable to a challenSe.d actlon of the defendant' ' Plaincif fdoes t oi have t,he reE oureest Eo be in competslC'l-on with Lambdaregardlese of wheCher Lambda mlsrepresented it s methode ofoperation E,o hlm. However, the fact that Lambda allegedly liedabouc its comm|tmenC to complJ.ance haa noL kept Plalntiff out ofthe .bueinesrs. Consequentlyr' t ,he Court f inde trhat Plalnt lf f doesno t have Artslcle II I standing to Purs\re hi s Lairham Act claim.Accordl.ng1Y, summary judgment in Lambdats favor on this claim ieappropriate, The rnotlon for summary judgmenE on Chl's c!aj'm'Eherefore, is well-taken arrd is G&AIVIED, This claLm i DISI4ISSED?fI|r!I PREIN'DICE.

36


37/38

001s8Conclugion

Inconc lud ion , theCourCf indEEhatLambda lsmot ' i onBurnmaryJudgment l swe l l - taken ina l l respects .Accord ing}y ,mot ion fo rE ummary judgment ' ( poc ' No ' 21 l i eGRA lq fE Dand theamendedcomp l . a in t i eD ls } . t I s sB DWITHP RE in ' D I cE -A saresu l co fthe declsion on auru'ary Jud,gment, Plaint if f

ts motion Eo eubmlt '

P a r t o fh l sexper t t s reporca f ,E er t hed igcoverY eu to f f da te r (Doc .No. 20, lE MOOT' In addition' 'Irarnbd'arg motj 'on to eErj"keP la in t , i f f t esupp lementa l responsebr ie f (Doc 'No '31 isTHI9 CASE Ig CLOSED'

IT IS SO ORDERED

o^t" //'.1-? 1Unifed St'aBes Dletrict Judge

forE.he

I'IOOT,

37


38/38

00159

Jo*nEl -rr*. -Caa;d-

Umrnn SrRrEsDISTRIcTounr KEHt{ErrTJ.'luDISTRICT OF

JIJDGMENT IN Alft!.

CaseNumber: c-1-00-661

renderedts verdict'l{ DecislonyCourt, ThisBtionameo rialorhearingcforehcCourt.The ssues eve een icdorheerd nila decisionasbecn endcred'

rTISORDERED I.IDADJTIDGEDTHATDEFEI'IDAI'TTS'OfiON FORSTJMMARYUDGMENTDOC.zUGRA}ITEDA}TDTHISCASESA;osED uRsuAI'ITo oRDERFTHE ouRT Doc'32J'

i lLt-u

usdistctcasec1no00661

Documents