Lawrence v. Youngstown

Ohio Supreme Court

Lawrence v. Youngstown

948 N.E.2d 449, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1512

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedJune 8, 2011

Docket2011-0621

StatusPublished

This text of 948 N.E.2d 449 (Lawrence v. Youngstown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. Youngstown, 948 N.E.2d 449, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1512 (Ohio 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Mahoning App. No. 09 MA 189, 2011-Ohio-998. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 4 of the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed April 8, 2011:

“R.C. 4123.90 requires the action to be filed within one hundred eighty days ’immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken’ and requires the employer to receive written notice of the claimed violation within ninety days ’immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken.’ Does the quoted portion of the statute mean the time limits begin to run on the effective date of discharge or when considering R.C. 4123.95’s directive for liberal construction does R.C. 4123.90 mean the time limits begin to run upon receiving notice of the discharge?”

Pfeifer and McGee Brown, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are Mechling v. K-Mart Corp. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 46, and O’Rourke v. Collingwood Health Care, Inc. (Apr. 15, 1988), Lucas App. No. L-87-345.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mahoning App. No. 09 MA 189, 2011-Ohio-998. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 4 of the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed April 8, 2011:

“R.C. 4123.90 requires the action to be filed within one hundred eighty days ’immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken’ and requires the employer to receive written notice of the claimed violation within ninety days ’immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken.’ Does the quoted portion of the statute mean the time limits begin to run on the effective date of discharge or when considering R.C. 4123.95’s directive for liberal construction does R.C. 4123.90 mean the time limits begin to run upon receiving notice of the discharge?”

Pfeifer and McGee Brown, JJ., dissent.

The conflict cases are Mechling v. K-Mart Corp. (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 46, and O’Rourke v. Collingwood Health Care, Inc. (Apr. 15, 1988), Lucas App. No. L-87-345.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

948 N.E.2d 449, 128 Ohio St. 3d 1512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-youngstown-ohio-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack