Menu
Representative Work
With over 100 years of combined experience, the Wadsworth firm of Palecek, McIlvaine, Hoffmann & Morse has fought on behalf of their clients in a vast array of cases in Ohio’s Municipal Courts, Common Pleas Courts, District Courts, and the Ohio Supreme Court. Below is a sampling of some of our successful cases argued before the Ohio Supreme Court which clarified existing law or made new law for our client’s benefit.
How Does the FMLA affect my business?
Wiles v. Medina Auto Parts, 96 Ohio St.3d 240 (2002).
In Wiles, the Court held that Ohio does not recognize a public policy claim based on the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This statement of law was a departure from a progressive law of public policy cases issued by the Ohio Supreme Court. The employee had requested and was granted two weeks of leave pursuant to the FMLA. When he returned, the employer made adverse changes to the employee's job, and he eventually resigned his position. The employee filed suit, asserting only a public policy violation based on the FMLA. The employee, however, did not sue under the FMLA itself. The Ohio Supreme Court held that "Ohio does not recognize a cause of action for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when the cause of action is based solely on a discharge in violation of the FMLA."
What counts as income for child support purposes?
Morrow v. Becker, 138 Ohio St.3d 11, 2013-Ohio-4542.
In Morrow, the Court held that benefits provided by an employer, such as a car, cell phone and football tickets given for personal use, should be included in income calculations to determine child support payments. Mr. Morrow and Ms. Becker had two children together. Mr. Morrow was ordered to pay child support for the children. However, a few years later, he sought to have the child support lowered due to a decrease in his income. He argued that his work benefits should not be counted towards the calculable income. The Court disagreed with his assertion. The Court reasoned that “it is sensible to conclude that the provision of a car is no different from the provision of funds to buy or lease a car. Either way, the person receiving the benefit effectively has a higher income.”
DISCLAIMER: Case results always depend upon a multiplicity of factors unique to each case. These specific case results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any other future case.
