Opinions Authored by Justice O'Connor
BUSINESS, INDUSTRY AND INSURANCE
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Galatis: This case reversed and overruled the Supreme Court’s infamous Scott-Pontzer decision. Galatis holds that absent any language to the contrary, a corporation’s uninsured/underinsured motorist policy covers only those employees who may be injured in the course and scope of employment. Although the immediate impact of Galatis was felt on the hundreds of Scott-Pontzer claims in the state, the lasting effect of Justice O’Connor’s opinion in Galatis was her development of a three-part test for determining when the Court should abandon the principle of stare decisis and overturn prior precedent.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Groch v. GMC: Justice O’Connor’s opinion in this case affirmed the constitutionality of the state’s recently passed laws allowing a self-insured employer to recover workers’ comp payments made to an injured worker from the proceeds of a civil judgment or settlement that the worker later receives; and a 10-year statute of repose (time limit) for product liability claims against a product’s manufacturer. Pursuant to this opinion, a manufacturer cannot be liable for a product liability claim once ten years have passed from the date the product is delivered to an end user.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Arbino v. Johnson & Johnson: Justice O’Connor concurred with Chief Justice Moyer’s majority opinion on this case that upheld two tort reform statutes that the General Assembly passed in 2004. The statutes the Court affirmed as a result of this opinion capped (1) non-economic damages at $350,000 and (2) punitive damages to just twice the amount of compensatory damages, unless a felony was involved in causing the injury. These were the first tort reform laws the Court had affirmed in several sessions as the Court had struck down previous tort reform attempts in the late 1990s.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Uddin v. Embassy Suites Hotel: Justice O’Connor authored a strong dissent from the court’s decision to dismiss this appeal without deciding the issue presented: whether violation of an administrative rule (here, a safety rule requiring that the water in an indoor pool be kept clear) constituted some evidence of negligence in a wrongful death case in which a ten year old girl drowned in a pool crowded with other people. Justice O’Connor would have held that the jury was entitled to consider the violation of the code as some evidence of negligence.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
WORKERS’ COMPENSATION
Cleveland Bar Assn. v. CompManagement, Inc.: In this case, Justice O’Connor held that third-party lay people may perform several tasks in a representative capacity for employers challenging a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Pursuant to Justice O’Connor’s opinion, these third-parties can make determinations regarding settlement offers, can relay those offers to the employer, and can communicate the employer’s concerns to the hearing officer. Justice O’Connor held these activities permissible in this situation because they do not require legal training. The effect of the decision is to decrease the litigation costs for the employer.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Gross v. Industrial Commission: In a strong dissenting opinion, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that Ohio’s no-fault workers’ compensation system entitled an employee to benefits even though he was injured due to his willful, repeated violations of known, established safety guidelines. Indeed, Justice O’Connor’s opinion made clear that the employee’s misconduct jeopardized not only his own well-being, but also the well-being of his co-workers. Her dissent emphasized that the court should defer to the Industrial Commission’s decision that this case presents a unique factual situation in which it is undisputed that the employee was fired for violation of safety rules that posed a danger to him and to his co-workers, and that his misconduct satisfied the test for voluntary abandonment of a job because Gross violated a written work rule that (1) defined clearly the prohibited conduct, (2) had been identified by the employer as an offense for which termination may result, and (3) was known or should have been known by the employee.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
EMPLOYMENT
Allen v. totes/Isotoner Corp.: In this gender discrimination claim based on lactation, Justice O’Connor wrote a separate opinion agreeing that the trial and appellate courts had properly entered summary judgment against Ms. Allen because the record did not demonstrate that she had been discriminated against based on the fact that she was lactating. But importantly, because Justice O’Connor found that the courts had failed to follow Ohio law in the process of deciding the case, she wrote a thorough opinion to clarify the law so that judges, lawyers, employers and employers would have the proper standards to follow in future cases. Her opinion was joined by Chief Justice Moyer and has been used by attorneys to advise their clients on how to handle similar conduct in the workplace.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Coryell v. Bank One Trust: In this age discrimination case, Justice O’Connor wrote the narrowly-decided opinion that set forth the new standard in Ohio for an employee alleging employment discrimination. Reversing the trial and appellate courts’ decisions in favor of the employer, Justice O’Connor held that a person alleging age-discrimination must bring forth some evidence that 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. In doing so, her opinion changed Ohio law, which previously required that the plaintiff establish that he or she was replaced with a person who was younger than 40 years old.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Greer-Burger v. Temesi: In this case, the employer filed a lawsuit seeking damages for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress against his former employee, who had previously lost her employment discrimination case against him. The Ohio Civil Rights Commission prohibited the employer from pursuing his lawsuit, finding that it was per se retaliatory. The trial and appellate courts affirmed this order. In reversing these judgments, Justice O’Connor, writing for the court, held that the employer was not automatically barred from filing an action against the employee. Instead, the employer can proceed with his lawsuit so long as he can establish that his claims are not objectively baseless.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Kish v. Akron: Two administrative employees who were covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the City of Akron questioned their supervisor about the office comp time policy. After they brought suit against the city for fair labor violations, their comp time records were destroyed. In a landmark opinion that was decided by a one-vote margin, Justice O’Connor held that the women were entitled the statutory penalty of $1,000 for each of the more than 800 time sheets that were destroyed because each time sheet was a public record. In doing so, Justice O’Connor rejected claims that the women’s underlying claims - which led to small verdicts - did not warrant the fines. Justice O’Connor stressed the importance of public records in Ohio, which are protected by statute with the intent of making government operations transparent to the public.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Lorain County Auditor v. Ohio Unemployment Corp. Rev. Comm: In a closely decided case, Justice O’Connor authored the opinion that allowed a nurse who had been removed from the schedule at a sheriff’s department to seek unemployment benefits even though her removal was a planned one that she had agreed to when she accepted employment. In doing so, Justice O’Connor stressed the purpose of the unemployment statute, i.e. to help employees through economic hardship unless they voluntarily quit employment or are terminated from their jobs for good cause, and held that a termination was not required before an employee could seek benefits.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY
Dobran v. Franciscan Med. Ctr.: The plaintiff filed a negligent infliction of emotional distress claim after a mishap with the screening of his lymph nodes for cancer. The plaintiff, however, did not have cancer and, thus, was not in any physical peril. Justice O’Connor’s opinion held that a plaintiff’s fear of illness cannot serve as the basis for a claim of negligent infliction of emotional distress.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Schirmer v. Mt. Auburn Obstetrics & Gynecologic Assoc., Inc.: In this medical malpractice case, Justice O’Connor’s opinion limited the amount of recoverable damages for a wrongful birth lawsuit only to those costs incurred in during the pregnancy and birth of the child. Economic and non-economic consequential damages are not available in these instances because the question in those circumstances forces a comparison between the child’s existence and non-existence.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Norwood v. Horney: This landmark decision regarding the government’s use of eminent domain was the first in the nation to be released following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo. In this unanimous opinion, Justice O’Connor held that the individual’s right to their home and property prevails when the government uses the reason of economic benefits to the community, standing alone, as justification to satisfy the public-use requirements of the Ohio Constitution.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
SAFETY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT
Bellecourt v. Cleveland: Justice O’Connor upheld the actions of Cleveland police in this case involving the burning of a Chief Wahoo effigy at Jacobs Field. Police arrested several people, who in protesting Chief Wahoo lit an effigy on fire in a cordoned-off section of Jacobs Field. Justice O’Connor stated that the police arrested the protesters due to the public safety threat. Thus, the city’s interest in preserving public safety did not infringe on the protesters’ First Amendment rights.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Toledo v. Tellings: The majority opinion in this case upheld as constitutional a city ordinance that banned vicious dogs, which by definition include all American pit bulls. In her concurring opinion, Justice O’Connor disagreed with the notion that any given breed of dogs is per se dangerous. Rather, she argued that it is the dog owner that is at issue and that any dog, regardless of breed, can be made “vicious.” In support of her assertions, Justice O’Connor cited research showing that common household dog breeds like miniature poodles and Shih-Tzus bite more frequently than do pit bulls. She suggested that legislation should focus on dog owners and their behavior rather than on the dogs’ breed.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
UNION WORKERS
Lima v. State: Justice O’Connor joined the majority opinion, written by Justice Pfeifer, which struck down as unconstitutional any local ordinance requiring city and municipal employees, including police officers and firefighters, to live within city limits.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State ex rel. Fisher v. Cleveland: The Cleveland firefighters brought this action as a result of the city’s efforts to enforce its residency requirements. Cleveland required those firefighters who were the subject of residency investigations to submit copies of their income tax returns. Justice O’Connor, writing for a unanimous court, declared that the city’s policy was an invasion of the firefighters’ right to privacy and prohibited the city from continuing it.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Assn. of Cleveland Firefighters v. Cleveland: In this case involving the Cleveland firefighters union, Justice O’Connor wrote that the city’s practice of “arrowing” (defined as temporarily rescheduling shifts that changes the ordinary 48 hours firefighters get off between shifts) violated the express terms of the parties’ collective bargaining agreement. Justice O’Connor reached this conclusion because the firefighters never agreed to the practice.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
Summit Cty. Children Servs. Bd. v. Communication Workers of Am., Local 4546: The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts’ judgment in this opinion authored by Justice O’Connor. Justice O’Connor agreed with the communication workers union in determining that because the collective bargaining agreement between the parties did not define what constituted “good cause” for disciplining an employee, the arbitrator was permitted to utilize a test for “good cause” that took into consideration the employee’s work record and other mitigating circumstances.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
CRIMINAL LAW
State v. Craig: A Cuyahoga County trial court judge dismissed a rape case because the prosecutor was 30 minutes late for trial. The State appealed, but the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals said that it could not hear the case. Justice O’Connor’s opinion for a unanimous court held that the court of appeals did have jurisdiction to hear the case, and remanded the case to the appellate court for consideration of the State’s appeal.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
In Re C.S.: In a significant decision, Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion that held that a juvenile in Ohio must have the benefit of counsel or advice from a parent, guardian or attorney in determining whether he or she should proceed through a delinquency hearing with the advice of an attorney, and that the juvenile can waive that right only if he is counseled and advised by his parent, custodian, or guardian.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Simpkin: In this opinion, Justice O’Connor’s analysis holds that a judge must impose on a criminal defendant the period of post-release control that is required by law, and that if the judge fails to follow the law, the sentence is void, and the state is entitled to a new sentencing hearing to have postrelease control imposed on the defendant unless the defendant has completed his sentence.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Silverman: Justice O’Connor, writing for a majority of the court, held that the hearsay statement of a child declarant can be admitted under Evid.R. 807 without a determination of the child’s competence to testify in a prosecution for child sexual abuse. The case arose from a horrible case in which a man admitted to having sexual contact with his young stepson, who was then killed in a house fire set by his mother.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Muttart: A jury convicted the defendant of raping his young daughter and the judge sentenced him to life in prison. On appeal, he argued that because his daughter was under the age of ten years old, statements she made to a social worker at a pediatric hospital where she was being evaluated and treated could not be admitted into evidence because the judge had not conducted a hearing to determine if the child was competent to testify, i.e., whether she could tell the difference between the truth and a lie. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice O’Connor held that regardless of whether a child less than ten years old has been determined to be competent to testify pursuant to Evid.R. 601, the child’s statements may be admitted at trial as an exception to the hearsay rule pursuant to Evid.R. 803(4) if they were made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Roberts: In this death penalty appeal, Justice O’Connor authored the opinion that affirmed the aggravated murder conviction of a woman who conspired with her lover to murder her husband in a premeditated plan that was conceived while her co-conspirator was still in prison. Although the court affirmed the conviction, Justice O’Connor led the court to a unanimous decision to vacate the death sentence and remand the case to the trial court for another sentencing hearing because the trial judge improperly requested that the prosecutor prepare the sentencing entry without the knowledge or permission of the defendant’s attorney. Justice O’Connor found that the judge’s error violated the defendant’s constitutional rights and the General Assembly’s command that the trial judge alone handle death sentences. (The judge was subsequently disciplined for his misconduct.)
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Diar: In this death penalty appeal, Justice O’Connor authored the unanimous opinion that affirmed the aggravated murder conviction of a woman who was found to have killed her young child but remanded the case for a new mitigation hearing to determine whether she should be sentenced to death. In doing so, Justice O’Connor recognized the state’s claim that the particular circumstances of this case, including the failure to give a jury instruction on what happens if a single juror does not vote in favor of the death penalty, warranted a new hearing on the proper sentence for the crime.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Yarborough: In this heart-wrenching decision, which Justice O’Connor joined, the court unanimously held that because the undisputed evidence established that the victims had been murdered in Pennsylvania rather than Ohio, Ohio did not have statutory jurisdiction over the homicides and that the verdicts by Ohio juries had to be set aside. (The case was retried in Pennsylvania.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Bodyke: Justice O’Connor authored the opinion that held the General Assembly violated the separation-of-powers doctrine by passing a law that reopened prior final decisions by judges who had classified sex offenders according to the law in effect at the time, and then had the Attorney General reclassify the offenders according to a new law that went into effect after the judges had made their rulings. The decision requires the sex offenders to obey the original classification, notification and reporting requirements that the judges had imposed on them after hearings.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>
State v. Ferguson: Justice O’Connor wrote the opinion that upheld the constitutionality of the last set of amendments to Ohio’s Megan’s Law, which governed the classification and registration of sex offenders and notification to the community about them. In her decision, she rejected claims that the registry had become to punitive and constituted a punishment.
<<Click Here to read the full opinion>>