{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-11-03","fingerprint":"ewai:us:fae3c7","proof":"sha256:fc8a1269ed03e053b474bb3606e21a7bd7e3d34f35853b7123ae9c88cd6c6ded","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155"],"kind":"front_matter"},{"title":"Summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of","paragraphs":["para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299"],"kind":"summary"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"[Cite as Drake v. UC Health, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-1483.]","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"DANIELLE DRAKE,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"vs.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"UC HEALTH, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"APPEAL NO. C-250581","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"TRIAL NO. A-2403093","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"JUDGMENT ENTRY","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"court is affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal,","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"court for execution under App.R. 27.","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"To the clerk:","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/24/2026 per order of the court.","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"By:_______________________","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"Administrative Judge","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"[Cite as Drake v. UC Health, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-1483.]","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"IN THE COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"DANIELLE DRAKE,","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"Plaintiff-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"vs.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"UC HEALTH, LLC,","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"Defendant-Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":":","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"APPEAL NO. C-250581","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"TRIAL NO. A-2403093","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"O P I N I O N","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"Civil Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 24, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"Tobias & Torchia and David Torchia, for Plaintiff-Appellant,","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"Jackson Lewis, P.C., Patricia Anderson Pryor and Patricia K. Gavigan for Defendant-","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"KINSLEY, Presiding Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_55","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"{¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Danielle Drake was terminated from her job as a","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"social worker at a facility operated by defendant-appellee UC Health, LLC (“UC”). She","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"sued UC, alleging that she was dismissed in violation of public policy because she","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"accessed a patient’s private health information (“PHI”) for the purpose of reporting a","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"coworker’s violation of federal law. But UC contends it terminated Drake, an at-will","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"employee, based on its clear workplace policy that PHI is off-limits for all but patient","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"care, billing, and department management, none of which justified Drake’s access.","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"{¶2} The trial court awarded summary judgment to UC. Because we agree","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"that, on this record, there is no genuine dispute of material fact as to the overriding","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"business justification for Drake’s termination, we affirm the judgment of trial court.","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"Background","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"{¶3} Drake began working as a social worker in UC’s emergency department","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"in 2014. As part of her employment, she regularly accessed patients’ PHI. Two rules","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"limited the circumstances under which she could do so. First, as with all health care","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"workers, Drake’s access to PHI was governed by a federal statute: the Health Insurance","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”). Drake was also required to","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"follow UC’s policies related to patient PHI. As a standard workplace rule, UC restricted","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"its employees’ access to PHI to “legitimate business reason[s].” A “legitimate business","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"reason” occurred when an employee had direct involvement in the treatment of the","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"patient, the billing or collecting of payment for services, or the management of a","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"department.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"{¶4} UC became aware that Drake accessed patient PHI without a legitimate","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"business reason in the course of investigating a complaint Drake initiated against a","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"coworker. Drake does not dispute that she accessed the patient’s PHI, but she argues","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"that her complaint justified the violation.","paragraph_id":"para_82","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"{¶5} Drake’s complaint stemmed from a phone call she overhead between","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"the coworker and the patient’s family member on December 8, 2023. Drake believed","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"the coworker provided the patient’s PHI to the family member in violation of HIPAA.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"UC directed its employees to report suspected HIPAA violations through a phone","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"hotline, an email address, by completing a Medical Information Data Analysis System","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"(“MIDAS”) form, or directly reporting the violation to a manager. Drake alleged she","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"could not complete a MIDAS form because she did not know the patient’s name. So,","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"on December 11, 2023, Drake reported the alleged violation to her social work","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"supervisor.","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"{¶6} When Drake did not hear back about the complaint, she followed up","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"with a different supervisor on January 12, 2024. In the days that followed, UC","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"conducted an investigation of Drake’s coworker. The investigation included speaking","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"to a member of the patient’s direct care team, who did not recall much. But the","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"conversation with the provider revealed that Drake knew much more about the patient","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"than the care team. This led Drake’s supervisor to be concerned that Drake herself","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"had accessed the patient’s PHI in an unauthorized way.","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"{¶7} Drake’s supervisor then contacted UC’s compliance department to","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"determine whether Drake had in fact accessed the patient’s PHI. The compliance","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"department confirmed that Drake accessed the patient’s identity report on December","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"8, 2023, the day of the coworker’s alleged HIPAA violation. Compliance records","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"reflected that Drake viewed a patient floor list for a floor of the hospital she was not","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"working on in order to connect to the patient’s record. Drake’s view of the document","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"was brief—a mere 18 seconds.","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"{¶8} After learning this information, Drake’s supervisor emailed her to","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"inquire whether she had a “work-related” reason for accessing the patient’s PHI.","paragraph_id":"para_109","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"Drake did not recall accessing the record.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"{¶9} The compliance department, Drake’s supervisor, and UC’s Human","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"Resources Department (“HR”) then conferred about Drake’s conduct. Drake’s","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"supervisor concluded that, according to UC policy, her access to patient PHI was","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"unauthorized because she was not a part of the patient’s care team. The team then","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"discussed the appropriate response for Drake’s misconduct, as UC’s written policy","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"permitted discipline up to and including termination for violations of the PHI rule.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"HR advised that UC’s strict practice is to terminate employees who access patient PHI","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"in an unauthorized manner.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"{¶10} After learning termination was required, Drake’s supervisor asked","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"about lesser sanctions, given that Drake acted in good faith and only briefly viewed the","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"record. He also expressed concern about “the implications a termination could have","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"on future good faith reporting.” In response, HR repeated that termination was the","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"standard remedy for Drake’s conduct.","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"{¶11} On February 7, 2024, Drake attended a meeting with HR and her","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"supervisors. Although she still did not recall accessing the patient’s PHI, she admitted","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"at the meeting that she must have done so. She indicated that her purpose in reviewing","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"the patient’s record was to learn the patient’s name so she could complete a MIDAS","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"form to report the coworker’s alleged HIPAA violation. Drake was then terminated for","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"“[u]nauthorized or otherwise inappropriate access, use, handling, or disclosure of","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"confidential patient health information (PHI), or inappropriate discussion of PHI in","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"public areas.”","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"{¶12} On July 10, 2024, Drake filed a complaint against UC in the Hamilton","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"County Court of Common Pleas, alleging that UC wrongfully terminated her in","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"violation of public policy. At the close of discovery, UC moved for summary judgment,","paragraph_id":"para_136","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"which the trial court granted. In its written order, the trial court focused on two","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"questions: (1) whether Drake accessed a patient’s PHI without appropriate","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"authorization, and (2) if Drake did, whether her termination was wrongful. In","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"answering the first question, the trial court highlighted the undisputed facts that","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"indicated that Drake had in fact accessed the patient’s PHI without authorization.","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"Drake herself admitted that she accessed a system list involving the patient, and UC’s","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"compliance officer also testified that Drake viewed the patient’s PHI. As to the second","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"question, the trial court found no authority for the proposition that terminating an","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"employee for unauthorized access of a patient’s PHI was against public policy. It","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"accordingly concluded that UC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"{¶13} This appeal followed.","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"Analysis","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"{¶14} Drake raises one assignment of error on appeal. She argues that the","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"trial court erred in granting UC’s motion for summary judgment because there are","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"disputed issues of material fact regarding the elements of her claim for wrongful","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"discharge in violation of Ohio’s public policy. We disagree.","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"A. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"{¶15} “The granting of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Rogers v.","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Sears, Roebuck and Co., 2002-Ohio-3304, ¶ 9 (1st Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Summary judgment is appropriate when (1) there is no genuine issue of","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"material fact, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"law, and (3) the evidence, when viewed in favor of the nonmoving party,","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"permits only one reasonable conclusion and that conclusion is adverse","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"to the nonmoving party.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"Heiert v. Crossroads Community Church, Inc., 2021-Ohio-1649, ¶ 37 (1st Dist.), citing","paragraph_id":"para_163","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"Evans v. Thrasher, 2013-Ohio-4776, ¶ 25 (1st Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"{¶16} In resolving a summary judgment motion, a court may consider “the","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, written admissions, affidavits,","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"transcripts of evidence, and written stipulations of fact.” Civ.R. 56(C). “When a","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"motion for summary judgment is properly made and supported,” the burden shifts to","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"the nonmoving party to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"for trial.” Todd Dev. Co. v. Morgan, 2008-Ohio-87, ¶ 11 (1st Dist.), citing Civ.R. 56(E).","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"When the nonmoving party is the plaintiff, if the plaintiff fails to set forth evidence","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to each element of its claim, then","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"“the defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.” Heiert at ¶ 40,","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"citing Williams v. 312 Walnut Ltd. Partnership, 1996 Ohio App. LEXIS 5887 *2 (1st","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"Dist. May 12, 2021).","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"B. Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"{¶17} Employment relationships in Ohio are governed by “the common-law","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"doctrine of employment at will.” Dohme v. Eurand Am. Inc., 2011-Ohio-4609, ¶ 11.","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"However, Ohio recognizes a public policy exception to this doctrine “when an","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"employee is discharged or disciplined for a reason which is prohibited by statute.”","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., 49 Ohio St.3d 228, 234 (1990). The","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"elements of a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy are","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"(1) That clear public policy existed and was manifested in a state or","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"federal constitution, statute or administrative regulation, or in the","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"common law (the clarity element).","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"(2) That dismissing employees under circumstances like those involved","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"in the plaintiff’s dismissal would jeopardize the public policy (the","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"jeopardy element).","paragraph_id":"para_190","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"(3) The plaintiff's dismissal was motivated by conduct related to the","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"public policy (the causation element).","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"(4) The employer lacked overriding legitimate business justification for","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"the dismissal (the overriding justification element).","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"Dohme at ¶ 12-16, citing Painter v. Graley, 70 Ohio St.3d 377, 384, fn. 8 (1994). The","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"clarity and jeopardy elements present questions of law, while the causation and","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"overriding justification elements present questions of fact. Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"St.3d 65, 70 (1995). A plaintiff must prove each element to satisfy the public policy","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"exception. See Wissler v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2010-Ohio-3432, ¶ 18","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"(10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"C. Overriding Justification","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"{¶18} We begin with the final element of the public policy test—the overriding","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"justification element—because it is dispositive of Drake’s appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"{¶19} Courts have established a burden-shifting framework in analyzing the","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"overriding justification element of a wrongful termination claim that relies on the","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"public policy exception. Nance v. Auto Mall, Inc., 2020-Ohio-3419, ¶ 48 (3d Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"Under this framework, if the plaintiff presents some evidence that the termination was","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"motivated by conduct related to the public policy, the burden shifts to the employer to","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"show that an overriding business justification supported the termination. Id. at ¶ 49.","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"If the employer meets that burden, then the plaintiff may demonstrate a genuine issue","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"of material fact exists as to this element by identifying evidence that the purported","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"justification was pretextual. Id. at ¶ 51.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"{¶20} As a general rule, absent a genuine dispute of material fact, courts do","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"not second-guess the business judgment of employers in determining personnel","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"decisions. Wissler, 2010-Ohio-3432, at ¶ 37 (10th Dist.). Courts therefore routinely","paragraph_id":"para_217","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"grant motions for summary judgment in public policy exception cases where the","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"plaintiff fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to the employer’s","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"overriding business justification. Nance at ¶ 52, citing Sells v. Holiday Mgmt., Ltd.,","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"2011-Ohio-5974, ¶ 39 (10th Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"{¶21} Here, UC presented an overriding business justification for its decision","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"to terminate Drake: that she violated its workplace policy prohibiting the unauthorized","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"access of patient PHI. The fact that Drake accessed the patient’s private health record","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"was undisputed; in fact, Drake herself admitted as much. This accordingly shifted the","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"burden to Drake to demonstrate a genuine dispute of material fact that her","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"termination was pretextual. See Nance, 2020-Ohio-3419, at ¶ 48 (3d Dist.).","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"{¶22} To establish pretext, Drake first argues that her conduct fell within the","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"scope of UC’s “legitimate business purpose” policy, as her access to the patient’s record","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"was brief, unintentional, and focused solely on obtaining the information necessary to","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"report the coworker’s alleged HIPAA violation. But Drake’s argument goes against the","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"plain terms of UC’s PHI policy. Under that policy, employees were only permitted to","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"access PHI in the treatment of a patient, for billing purposes, or to manage a","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"department. Drake’s access did not fall within any of these categories.","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"{¶23} Drake next points to UC’s progressive discipline policy in an effort to","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"establish pretext. It is true that UC’s written policy does not mandate automatic","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"termination for improper PHI access. But Drake offers no proof that it requires","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"corrective discipline before termination. To the contrary, UC’s chief compliance","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"officer testified that its strict practice is to automatically terminate employees who","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"inappropriately access PHI, and UC’s senior HR partner and Drake’s supervisor both","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"attested that they were unaware of any circumstance in which an employee was not","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"terminated after UC discovered improper access of PHI. Absent any evidence that","paragraph_id":"para_244","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"UC’s policies require progressive discipline or that UC deviated from its standard","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"practices, we see no evidence of pretext in its decision to terminate Drake as a first","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"response.","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"{¶24} Drake next points to text messages she entered into the record between","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"herself and another UC employee, R.W., as potential evidence of pretext. Drake claims","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"that R.W. confirmed in texts that she had not been fired after her supervisor","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"determined that she improperly accessed PHI. But this alleged fact is not competently","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"demonstrated by the record. R.W. never testified or provided evidence, and R.W.’s","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"alleged statements to Drake in text messages about how she was treated at work are","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"hearsay. See, e.g., State v. Roseberry, 2011-Ohio-5921, ¶ 74 (holding that text","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"messages admitted for the truth of the matter asserted are inadmissible hearsay).","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"“Absent an exception, hearsay may not be considered in a motion for summary","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"judgment.” Pearl v. City of Wyoming, 2013-Ohio-2723, ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), citing Johnson","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"v. Southview Hosp., 2012-Ohio-4974, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.). As Drake has not identified any","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"applicable hearsay exception, we must therefore discount any statements attributed to","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"R.W. And absent R.W.’s texts, nothing in the record supports Drake’s argument that","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"other employees have engaged in the unauthorized access of PHI without being fired.","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"{¶25} We resolve two other points about pretext. Drake contends that her","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"supervisor and the senior HR partner provided conflicting testimony as to who made","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"the determination that Drake’s PHI access was inappropriate. We disagree with","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Drake’s interpretation of the record, as both witnesses seemed clear that the","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"supervisor labeled Drake’s conduct in violation. But even if Drake is correct, and the","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"supervisor and the HR partner disagreed as to who made the decision, the evidence","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"still does not conflict on the ultimate question of material fact under the overriding","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"justification element—why Drake was terminated. All UC witnesses agreed that Drake","paragraph_id":"para_271","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"was fired because she violated UC’s policy against the unauthorized access of patient","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"PHI. Drake therefore fails to point to a genuine issue of material fact between the","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"supervisor’s and the HR partner’s testimony.","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"{¶26} Lastly, Drake argues that HIPAA itself insulates her conduct. In doing","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"so, she relies in part on 45 C.F.R. 164.501, a federal regulation which defines the term","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"“health care operations” to include “management activities.” But UC’s overriding","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"justification for terminating Drake was not that she violated HIPAA; it was that she","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"violated UC’s policy against the unauthorized access of patient PHI. Thus, we do not","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"determine whether federal law permitted Drake to access the patient’s hospital","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"records, as that point is immaterial. It is clear that UC’s policy did not and that UC","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"fired Drake for this reason.","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"{¶27} Drake therefore failed to meet her burden of establishing a genuine","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"issue of material fact as to the overriding justification for her termination. As a result,","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"and based on the record before the court, reasonable fact finders could come to only","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"one conclusion on this element of the public policy test—that it was against UC policy","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"for any employee to access patient PHI without a legitimate business reason, that","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"Drake lacked such a reason, and that UC followed its strict practice of termination for","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"these violations. Drake’s claim therefore fails the fourth prong of the public policy","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"exception to at-will employment.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"{¶28} Because Drake has not set forth evidence showing that a genuine issue","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"of material fact exists as to the overriding justification element of her claim, the trial","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"court did not err in granting summary judgment in UC’s favor. We accordingly","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"overrule Drake’s sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"Judgment affirmed.","paragraph_id":"para_298","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"ZAYAS and MOORE, JJ., concur.","paragraph_id":"para_299"}],"word_count":2930,"cites":[],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"c3136991112ae2e504df0727d62e49b1eed1d0654fbb88f160ad69d019fc9e85","source_url":"https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/1/2026/2026-Ohio-1483.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-10T19:02:41.499+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","name":"Elliott v. Jose","decided":"2026-10-05","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-2-26-07-2026-10-05"},{"id":"us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","name":"State of Iowa v. Scott A. Belt","decided":"2026-10-02","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:iowa-25-2197-2026-10-02"},{"id":"us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","name":"Matter of Garnet Health Med. Ctr. v. People","decided":"2026-09-30","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:nyappdiv-2024-04253-2026-09-30"},{"id":"us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","name":"In re A.H.","decided":"2026-09-23","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e086667m-2026-09-23"},{"id":"us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","name":"Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: KP-0530","decided":"2026-09-17","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:texag-kp-0530-2026-09-17"},{"id":"us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","name":"Sonic Drive-In, Keene, TX, LLC v. Leigh Anne Miller, Individually, and as Representative of the Estate of Matthew Davis","decided":"2026-09-17","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:txctapp10-10-24-00353-cv-2026-09-17"},{"id":"us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","name":"Lorie Jean Lisandrillo v. Renee Palozzi","decided":"2026-09-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:fladistctapp-4d2026-2262-2026-09-16"},{"id":"us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","name":"Sujan v. UHS Corona","decided":"2026-09-16","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:calctapp-e084185-2026-09-16"},{"id":"us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","name":"Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated v. HHS","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:cadc-25-5133-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","name":"Jenkins v. McLaughlin Body Co.","decided":"2026-09-03","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-4-25-0962-2026-09-03"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"c3136991112ae2e504df0727d62e49b1eed1d0654fbb88f160ad69d019fc9e85","recomputed_sha256":"c3136991112ae2e504df0727d62e49b1eed1d0654fbb88f160ad69d019fc9e85","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-11-04T00:40:47.290Z"},"verification_scope":{"stored_hash_is_source_verification":false,"official_source_comparison":"not_performed","legal_review":"not_assessed"},"decision_object":{"schema_version":"1","object_id":"decision:us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","judgment_class":"E","operative_part":"not_in_register","cites_count":0,"word_count":2930,"decision_url":null},"agent_links":{"agent_root":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/agent.json","agent_overview":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/rapid/agent/overview"}},"hash":"sha256:fc8a1269ed03e053b474bb3606e21a7bd7e3d34f35853b7123ae9c88cd6c6ded","version":"legal-2026-11-03","expires":"2026-11-05T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-11-03+legal-2026-11-03+2026-11-03T18:20:21","content_hash":"sha256:fc8a1269ed03e053b474bb3606e21a7bd7e3d34f35853b7123ae9c88cd6c6ded","revalidate_after":"2026-11-04T01:40:48.477Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-a0eb832eb7e4574d957b4eb96729fd7d","response_hash":"sha256:fc8a1269ed03e053b474bb3606e21a7bd7e3d34f35853b7123ae9c88cd6c6ded"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T00:40:48.860Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aohioctapp-c-250581-2026-04-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":14519}}