Ramudit v. Fifth Third Bank, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2005)
Ramudit v. Fifth Third Bank, Unpublished Decision (3-4-2005)
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 2} Fifth Third points out in its motion for reconsideration that the entry was actually journalized on November 24, 2003, not September 24, as we had stated. Our review of the record shows that Fifth Third's assertion is correct. Consequently, Ramudit had adequate time to respond to Fifth Third's motion and our basis for reversing the judgment was erroneous. See Hooten v. Safe Auto Ins. Co.,
{¶ 3} Further, our review of the record shows that no issues of material fact existed on the issue of wrongful discharge. The record did not show that Ramudit was terminated from her employment in violation of a clear public policy. See Painter v. Graley,
{¶ 4} The Court, upon consideration thereof, finds that the application is well taken and is granted. We amend our previous opinion to overrule Ramudit's fourth assignment of error and affirm the trial court's decision granting summary judgment in favor of Fifth Third on her cause of action for wrongful discharge. The opinion should reflect that the trial court's judgment as a whole is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion as amended.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Goomtie Ramudit v. Fifth Third Bank, and Ohio Civil Rights Commission
- Cited By
- 2 cases
- Status
- Unpublished