Legal News

Haber Polk Kabat, LLP strikes again!  In a federal copyright infringement case filed on behalf of a local newsreporter, Andrew A. Kabat and Bradley J. Barmen, obtained a jury verdict against LFP, Inc.  The jury specifically found that Defendants’ Good Faith/Advice of Counsel defense to Plaintiffs’ copyright infringement claim was inapplicable.  The federal lawsuit, which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio and assigned to the Honorable Solomon Oliver, Jr., is captioned Catherine Balsley aka Catherine Bosley, et al. v. LFP, Inc., et al., Case No.: 1:08-cv-00491-SO.  Plaintiffs’ application for attorney’s fees is currently pending with the Court. 

In a federal jury trial presided over by the Honorable James S. Gwin, Shannon J. Polk and Daniel M. Connell obtained a $284,600.00 verdict in favor of The Lincoln Electric Company in a commerical dispute against MPM Technologies, Inc. involving claims of breach of contract and breach of warranty.  The federal lawsuit, which was pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, is captioned Lincoln Electric Co. v. MPM Technologies, Inc., Case No.: 1:08CV02853. 

Jury gives Brecksville man biggest award in Ohio history
WKYC-TV Cleveland July 4, 2008

“It was very emotional. Jurors were crying. There were tears in my client’s eyes,” said Shannon Polk, Luri’s attorney.

“As the work force gets older because of the population, it sends a strong message, issues pertaining to age discrimination will not be tolerated,” Polk said. Read the full story or watch the video (courtesy Tom Beres / WKYC-TV) »

Ohio jury gives fired man $46.7 million verdict
The Associated Press / Cleveland.com July 4, 2008

The Common Pleas Court jury awarded Luri $3.5 million as compensation for his lost wages as general manager of Republic’s Cleveland division, and $43.1 million in punitive damages as punishment for the company’s treatment of Luri.

Attorneys Shannon Polk and Richard Haber presented a computer expert who found that Bowen had post-dated the memo and added two paragraphs critical of Luri’s job performance two weeks after Luri filed the lawsuit. Full story »

Ohio jury awards fired man $46.7 million verdict
The Akron Beacon Journal July 3, 2008

The jury awarded Luri $3.5 million as compensation for his lost wages as general manager of Republic’s Cleveland division. The jury also gave him $43.1 million in punitive damages. The jury also ordered Republic to pay Luri’s attorneys’ fees, which could run into the millions of dollars.

“In this area and in this country, we have a work force that is getting older. … This sends a message to the company that if you’re looking to restructure and elimination positions, age isn’t a factor,” Polk said. Full story »

Jury Awards Man Who Refused To Fire Workers $46M
Employment Law360 July 9, 2008

A general manager for waste collection company Republic Services Inc. who was terminated after he refused to fire his three oldest employees has been awarded $46.7 million by a Cleveland jury.

Ronald Luri claimed in his lawsuit that the company’s area president told him in October 2006 to fire the employees, all of whom were about 60 years old and one of whom was disabled. Luri objected, saying they were all good performers and that firing them would constitute age and disability discrimination. Full story »

In May of 2008, Andrew A. Kabat and Richard C. Haber took to trial an age discrimination case on behalf of Lee-Ann Spacek against Realty One, Inc. d/b/a Realty One Real Living, Real Living, Inc., and Kaira Sturdivant Rouda.  Ms. Spacek, 57, was an executive in the Defendants’ relocation department.  Despite being an excellent performer, Ms. Spacek was terminated and replaced with a 29 year-old employee.  Defendants claimed that Ms. Spacek’s termination was part of a legitimate reduction-in-force.  

On May 28, 2008, a Cuyahoga County jury returned a verdict in favor of Ms. Spacek in the amount of $1.85 million plus her attorney’s fees.  Of the $1.85 million verdict, $700,000 represents a punitive damage award against the Defendants.

The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued a ruling that will have a far reaching impact on an employer’s right to protect its trade secrets under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, R.C. § 1333.61 et seq.  Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court found that trade secrets do not lose their status as such simply because they have been memorized by an employee.

Al Minor & Assoc., Inc. v. Martin, Slip Opinion No. 2008-Ohio-292 involved allegations by an employer that a former employee had memorized confidential client information and, after leaving the employer to begin his own business, used this confidential information to solicit customers to his new enterprise.  The employer sued alleging that the memorized information used by the former employee was a trade secret under Ohio’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). After the employer prevailed at both the trial and appellate level, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal to settle a purported split among Ohio’s appellate courts on this issue.

(more…)

The Hamilton County Court of Appeals (Cincinnati) has taken the first step toward eliminating the confusion regarding applicable statute of limitations in age discrimination claims. In Meyer v. United Parcel Services, Inc., Hamilton Cty, No. C-060772, 2007-Ohio-7063, the Hamilton County Court of Appeals concluded that the Plaintiff had timely filed his age discrimination claim under R.C. § 4112.99 even though the lawsuit was not filed until more than 18 months after the termination of his employment. The debate originates from a multitude of statutes which prohibit age discrimination under Ohio law and the limitation periods established under each of these statutes. A brief summary of the competing statutory provisions is set forth more fully below.

(more…)

In the recent decision of Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2007-Ohio-6948, the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of two provisions of the Ohio Revised Code which limit noneconomic and punitive damages in certain tort actions. The first statutory provision considered by the Supreme Court was R.C. § 2315.18, which caps noneconomic damages (i.e. intangible losses such as pain and suffering, loss of consortium, mental anguish, etc.) at the greater of (1) $250,000, or (2) three times the economic damages (up to a maximum of $350,000). Pursuant to the statute, this damage cap does not apply if the plaintiff suffered “[p]ermanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system,” or “[p]ermanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents the injured person from being able to independently care for self and perform life-sustaining activities.” R.C. § 2315.18 (B)(3)(a) through (b).

(more…)

In a retreat from prior precedent, the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that employees who are terminated as a result of filing for and receiving workers’ compensation benefits may not pursue public policy-based wrongful discharge claims. See Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2007-Ohio-6751. In so holding, the Supreme Court expressly limited the scope of its previous (and controversial) decision in Coolidge v. Riverdale Local Sch. Dist., 100 Ohio St.3d 141, 2003-Ohio-5357. As set forth below, the Bickers decision is a significant victory for employers across the state of Ohio inasmuch as they are now no longer required to hold open jobs of employees who are on a leave of absence due to a work-related injury. (more…)

In order to establish claims for retaliatory discharge, employees must, among other things, show that they engaged in “protected activity” and they were terminated as a result. It is well recognized that employees do not need to file formal complaints in order to engage in protected activity - instead, it is the simple assertion of statutory rights that triggers protection under statutory anti-retaliation provisions. In Fox v. Eagle Dist. Co., Inc., __ F.3rd __, 2007 WL 4355184 C.A.6 (Tenn.), 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit limited what it means for one to “assert statutory rights” within the context of retaliation claims. (more…)

Ohio Supreme Court Rules That It Is Not Per Se Retaliation For Employer To Sue Employee After Prevailing In Discrimination/Harassment Suit Brought By Employee

The Ohio Supreme Court recently issued an opinion on the issue of whether an employer’s lawsuit against an employee who had engaged in protected conduct can constitute retaliation under Ohio R.C. § 4112.02(I). In Greer-Burger v. Temesi (2007), Slip Opinion No. 2007-Ohio-6442, the Supreme Court found that such actions on the part of the employer will not constitute retaliation if the employer’s suit is not objectively baseless. (more…)