Anthony Casale v. Nationwide Children's Hosp.
682 F. App'x 359 (2017)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Ohio law, an employment contract that specifies multi-year compensation, bonuses, and other benefits, but lacks an express durational term, does not overcome the strong presumption of at-will employment. Such financial provisions refer to the rate of compensation, not a guarantee of employment for a specific term.
Facts:
- In 2010, Nationwide Children’s Hospital (NCH) recruited Dr. Anthony Casale, a tenured professor at the University of Louisville, for the position of Chief of Urology.
- After negotiations, NCH sent Casale a final offer letter which he signed and returned on August 4, 2010.
- The offer letter detailed Casale's salary for the first three years, a guaranteed bonus for the first two years, and a multi-year research package, but it did not contain an express term specifying the duration of his employment.
- The offer was contingent upon Casale obtaining an Ohio medical license and NCH medical staff privileges.
- During the licensing and credentialing process, which was delayed, NCH received a 'very poor' peer review reference regarding Casale.
- Casale attended meetings at NCH which hospital staff described as uncomfortable and unproductive, and Casale made a remark that a meeting was a 'waste of my time'.
- Citing an aggregate of concerns including Casale's perceived ambivalence and difficulties with staff, NCH withdrew its offer of employment before Casale's scheduled start date.
- After NCH withdrew the offer, the University of Louisville rehired Casale, but at a lower salary and without tenure.
Procedural Posture:
- Anthony Casale filed a lawsuit against Nationwide Children's Hospital (NCH) in the United States District Court.
- The district court granted NCH's motion to dismiss two of Casale's original claims.
- NCH then filed a motion for summary judgment on the five remaining claims: breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, anticipatory repudiation, promissory estoppel, and defamation.
- The district court granted NCH's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Casale's remaining claims.
- Casale (appellant) appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, with NCH as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employment offer letter that specifies a salary structure for three years, a guaranteed bonus for two years, and multi-year research funding, but lacks an express durational term, create an enforceable contract for a specific period of employment under Ohio law?
Opinions:
Majority - Griffin, Circuit Judge.
No, the employment offer letter does not create an enforceable contract for a specific term. Ohio maintains a strong presumption of at-will employment, which can only be overcome if the terms of an agreement clearly indicate otherwise. Provisions in an employment contract detailing an annual rate of compensation, multi-year bonuses, or future benefits do not establish a specific duration of employment; they merely define the rate of pay and support during employment. Citing Henkel v. Educ. Research Council of Am., the court affirmed that an annual salary does not create a one-year contract. Because the offer letter did not state a duration, it was an at-will agreement terminable by either party at any time. Therefore, NCH's withdrawal of the offer was not a breach of an express or implied contract. Furthermore, Casale's promissory estoppel claim fails because he could not identify a clear and unambiguous promise of job security for a specific term, as required by Ohio law.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high threshold required to overcome the presumption of at-will employment in Ohio. It clarifies that even substantial, long-term financial commitments within an offer letter are insufficient to create a contract for a specific term without explicit durational language. The case serves as a crucial precedent, warning employees and their counsel that reliance on implied terms from salary and bonus structures is unlikely to succeed in court. For an employment relationship to be for a definite term, that term must be expressly and clearly stated in the contract.
