In Miracle v. Ohio Dept. of Veterans Servs. the Ohio Supreme Court held there is no clear public policy provided in R.C. 124.27(B) and 124.56 that would allow a civil-service employee, terminated during their probationary period, to assert a tort claim for wrongful-discharge. The Ohio Department of Veterans Services hired Miracle on a probationary period on February 2015. During this period, Miracle was given a performance review where he received ratings of “meets expectations” or “exceeds expectations” in every category. However, Miracle was terminated during his probationary period after a senior advisor to John Kasich, Jai Chabria, learned of Miracle’s adverse employment history. Miracle was terminated by his previous employer for failing to secure tools that resulted in an inmate escaping a corrections facility, and then falsifying records afterwards. Jai Chabria believed this history would generate negative press and directed Miracle to be terminated.
Miracle then brought a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Services and the governor’s office alleging his termination violated public policy. Ohio law allows an at-will employee to file a lawsuit alleging the termination was in violation of public policy. Greeley v. Miami Valley Maint. Contractors, 49 Ohio St. 3d 228 (1990). This standard applies to both private and public at-will employees. Greeley claims allow an employee to maintain a tort action for wrongful discharge when the employee has been discharged for a reason prohibited by public policy. To succeed on a Greeley claim, a plaintiff must prove:
(1) that a clear public policy existed and was manifested either in a state or federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation or in the common law (“the clarity element”),
(2) that dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved in the plaintiff’s dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (“the jeopardy element”),
(3) the plaintiff’s dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the public policy (“the causation element”), and
(4) the employer lacked an overriding legitimate business justification for the dismissal (“the overriding-justification element”).”
Miracle asserted R.C. 124.27(B) and 124.56 were the basis for “the clarity element.” R.C. 124.27(B) governs the appointment and removal of probationary employees under civil service law while R.C. 124.56 authorizes State Personnel Board of Review (“SPBR”) to conduct investigations into public officials and in some instances recommend their removal. However, neither statute provides a basis for a wrongful-discharge claim for civil-service employees terminated during their probationary period. Since Miracle was unable to establish the clarity element, the court did not analyze the other three prongs and dismissed Miracle’s Greeley claims.
The court noted if they were to adopt Miracle’s theory of recovery under R.C. 124.27(B), they would be affording probationary employees more protections than tenured employees, since tenured employees do not have the ability to pursue tort actions in most termination cases. Additionally, the court explained that recognizing a Greeley claim in this case would contradict the General Assembly’s intent to expand employers’ authority to remove probationary employees, which has been demonstrated in a series of amendments diminishing probationary employees’ ability to appeal employment decisions. Similarly, R.C. 124.56 provides SPBR with the authority to investigate officials and recommend their removal, but it does not offer any relief to employees.
Overall, the Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of Miracle’s Greeley claims since neither R.C. 124.27(B) or 124.56 provided a clear public policy to allow him to recover for being terminated during his probationary period. This decision affirms civil-service employers’ authority to discharge or discipline probationary employees without giving rise to a wrongful-discharge tort claim.
This decision is instructive for both public and private employers. It reaffirms the need to clearly state in an employee handbook the rights an employer has to terminate an at-will employee for any lawful reason or for no reason at all.