Whistleblower

Outcome of lawsuit hinges upon interpretation of whistleblower statute

McGuire v. Elyria United Methodist Village, 152 Ohio App.3d 186 (2003).

Barbara McGuire worked for Elryia United Methodist Village as a registered nurse. After McGuire complained about inadequate staffing levels, EUMV subjected her to various disciplinary actions and eventually terminated McGuire. McGuire brought suit alleging, among other things, that she was wrongfully terminated in violation of Ohio’s whistleblower statute and for violations of public policy codified in Ohio’s whistleblower statute. McGuire appeals from the grant of summary judgment against her on these claims.

The central question on appeal was the trial court’s interpretation of R.C. 4113.52 which stated:

If an employee becomes aware in the course of the employee’s employment of a violation of any state or federal statute or any ordinance or regulation of a political subdivision that the employee’s employer has authority to correct and if the employee reasonably believes that the violation is either a criminal offense that is likely to cause an imminent risk of physical harm to persons or a hazard to public health or safety or is a felony, the employee orally shall notify the employee’s supervisor or other responsible officer of the employee’s employer of the violation and subsequently shall file with that supervisor or officer a written report that provides sufficient detail to identify and describe the violation.

McGuire argued that the statute requires a reasonable belief that a statute, ordinance, or regulation has been violated and that the violation is (1) a criminal offense that is likely to cause an imminent risk of harm or (2) a hazard to public health or safety or (3) a felony.

The appeals court disagreed and indicated that the correct interpretation was that a reasonable belief that a statute, ordinance, or regulation has been violated and that the violation is (1) a criminal offense (that is likely to cause an imminent risk of harm or a hazard to public health or safety) or (2) a felony.

As to the public policy claim, the appeals court found that an employee bringing a public policy claim dependent upon the public policy embedded in R.C. 4113.52 must strictly comply with the requirements of the statute. In this case, McGuire had no reasonable belief that a criminal offense or felony had occurred.