Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Welch v. Brown's Nursing Home
Citations: 484 N.E.2d 178; 20 Ohio App. 3d 15Docket: No. C-830724
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; July 11, 1984; Ohio; State Appellate Court
An appeal was filed by plaintiff-appellant Irene Welch against the Court of Common Pleas of Hamilton County following a judgment favoring defendant-appellee Brown's Nursing Home in a wrongful discharge case. Welch alleged her termination breached her employment contract and was retaliatory after she reported suspected violations of Ohio nursing home regulations to the Ohio Commission on Aging. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, establishing that Welch's employment was at-will, as she initially admitted no formal contract existed. A handwritten document regarding a leave of absence did not imply a contractual obligation, and Rev. P.J. Brown's intentions to reinstate Welch did not alter the at-will nature of her employment. Welch raised four assignments of error, the first two of which were overruled. The court found no grounds for a tort claim in her complaint, which was primarily based on the alleged breach of an implied employment contract. The third assignment questioned the implications of R.C. 3721.17 regarding civil actions, but the court did not find merit in Welch's arguments. Overall, the court concluded that there was no genuine issue regarding the at-will status of Welch's employment. R.C. 3721.17 prohibits retaliation by a home or its employees against individuals exercising rights under sections 3721.10 to 3721.17, including filing complaints, acting as witnesses, or reporting violations. If retaliation is found, the violator may face a fine of up to $1,000, with the Department of Health responsible for assessment. The court referenced the case of Fawcett v. G.C. Murphy Co., which examined the lack of a civil remedy in a related statute, concluding that the General Assembly did not intend to create such a remedy for retaliatory terminations. In contrast, R.C. 3721.17 explicitly provides a remedy in the form of fines but does not establish a cause of action for employees against employers for retaliation. The court affirmed its decision, ruling that R.C. 3721.17 is an administrative statute, and reiterated that the General Assembly intended for residents, not employees, to have a cause of action for violations of their rights under this statute.