# Greenwood v. Taft, Stettinius & Hollister

> Ohio Court of Appeals · September 13, 1995 · 105 Ohio App. 3d 295

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729920

## Case

- **Full name:** GREENWOOD, Appellant, v. TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, Appellee
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 13, 1995
- **Citations:** 105 Ohio App. 3d 295; 663 N.E.2d 1030; 10 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1744; 1995 Ohio App. LEXIS 3932
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Painter
- **Judges:** Bettman, Painter, Sundermann
- **Cited by:** 36 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729920

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that, without the legislative addition of “sexual orientation” to the statutory list of protected statuses, there is no statutory prohibition on discrimination based upon a person’s sexual orientation
- stating that “the Ohio civil rights statutes, R.C. Chapter 4112, do not include sexual orientation among their protections”
- declining to decide whether the Restatement definition or an expanded definition of publicity applies

## Opinion text

Painter, Judge,
concurring.
With respect to the employment issue in the second assignment of error, I concur in Judge Bettman’s opinion and analysis. At least as the complaint is pleaded, appellant has stated no ground cognizable at law for avoiding the employment-at-will doctrine. Appellant asks this court to go very far out on the proverbial limb to bootstrap a public policy exception onto the alleged facts of this case. How far we would have to travel out that limb is unknowable, because there is no limb at all, not even a twig.
As to the first assignment of error, I concur in the judgment and in the analysis. Because of the liberal pleading standards of Civ.R. 12(B)(6), and because insufficient facts are before us, I believe that a determination of the
*305
parameters of the “publicity” element of the private-facts disclosure tort must await another day.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3729920. Public record. Not legal advice.