Lawrence v. Youngstown
Annotate this CaseEmployee was suspended from his position with City and, therefore, was not working when City discharged him. Employee subsequently filed an action against City for retaliatory discharge under Ohio Rev. Code 4123.90. Employee alleged he did not learn he had been discharged until almost six weeks after the date City claimed the discharge occurred. The trial court ruled the allegation was not relevant to, and did not delay the commencement of, the ninety-day period following the discharge for the employer to receive written notice of Employee's claim that his discharge had been retaliatory under section 4123.90. The court, therefore, found Employee's ninety-day notice letter untimely. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) in general, "discharge" in section 4123.90 means the date the employer issued the notice of employment termination, not the date of the employee's receipt of that notice or the date of the employee's discovery of a section 4123.90 cause of action; but (2) the facts of this case may require an exception to the general rule. Remanded.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.