Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc.
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.
This case requires us to resolve two issues. The first involves an issue of law. The second involves a mixture of law and fact. Appellants assert that the General Assembly abolished common-law tort actions premised upon sexual misconduct by way of preemption when it enacted R.C. Chapter 4112. Appellants also argue that the doctrine of employment at will bars Helmick’s breach of contract action, said action being premised upon her discharge without just cause. We reject appellants’ positions as aforesaid and affirm the court of appeals.
I
On the first point there appears to be little question…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. GreenSupreme Court of the United States · 1973
- Plumbers & Steamfitters Joint Apprenticeship Committee v. Ohio Civil Rights CommissionOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1985
- Shaw v. Railroad Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1880
- Barker v. Scovill, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1983
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by121 opinions
- Wing v. Anchor Media, Ltd.Ohio Supreme Court · 1991
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contractors, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1990
- Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1997
- Collins v. RizkanaOhio Supreme Court · 1995
- Genaro. v. Central Transport, Inc.Ohio Supreme Court · 1999
116 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.