As a lawyer
and criminologist,
I look for everything and
find everything
that makes a
difference in your
case. Your rights
depend on it.
Unlike many of
my peers, I am
one of those people who has
worked for a
living prior to becoming a
lawyer. I am
Mike Conway, and
I will help you.
and criminologist,
I look for everything and
find everything
that makes a
difference in your
case. Your rights
depend on it.
Unlike many of
my peers, I am
one of those people who has
worked for a
living prior to becoming a
lawyer. I am
Mike Conway, and
I will help you.
PHONE ANSWERED 24 HOURS: 330 220-7660 | e-mail: Xray2Alpha@aol.com | office location: 180 Aster Place, Brunswick, OH 44212
DISCUSSION FORUM AND ANSWERS TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
Q. Does the “employment at will” doctrine I heard about always prevent someone from winning a wrongful termination case against my employer?
A. No. The employment at-will doctrine has a tortured history as a defense in the Courts and as a result there are numerous exceptions to it. What you are used to hearing from the HR Department when you made a complaint about the way they fired you is that you have to put up with it because you can be “fired for any reason or no reason.” Yet this is not the truth nor an accurate statement of the law. In Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St. 3d 100 (1985) the high court decreed “a general or indefinite hiring is terminable at the will of either employee or the employer” for “any reason or no reason except a reason contrary to law.” It is well established that an employer has a duty to comply with a law that regulates employer and employee conduct whether or not the Plaintiff was
originally hired in a “at-will” capacity and a violation of a statutory duty cannot be excused by claiming the Plaintiff was hired on an at-will basis. No employer can use the “at-will” doctrine to immunize its conduct from the reach of the law including for example but not limited to laws against discrimination, retaliation, unsafe workplaces, or forcing an employee to participate in illegal conduct to keep his or her job, or laws meant to protect employee benefits and wages.
Q. Can I be acquitted in a DUI/DWI case if the government does not have any breath or blood alcohol evidence showing my alleged intoxication because I would not “blow” when arrested?
A. Maybe. On the one hand I would expect the government could not successfully prosecute you because you refused to consent to give a breath or blood sample. Indeed, proof of intoxication requires production of scientific and medical evidence showing the same. On the other hand the government can successfully prosecute you for driving under the influence (DUI) if there is some evidence you were drinking and it impaired your ability to drive. The old refrain “officer I only had two beers” is enough of an admission of fault to get you locked for a DUI conviction if you were driving after drinking two beers and there is proof it adversely affected your driving, such as being seen weaving or speeding. Moreover, there is no guarantee, rightly or wrongly, the Judge will not let the jury hear you refused to consent to the breath test in spite of the fact I would argue that evidence should not come in. The law in this area is in a constant state of flux, every case has different facts, and the current penalties for DUI/DWI are severe so I would not make a decision about what to do when arrested based upon this general discussion. Although it is your right to do so, I would recommend that you should never try to handle any DUI/DWI case, or any criminal case for that matter, by yourself. “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” If you have questions after reading this you need to talk to a lawyer.
Q. What is the best way to protect yourself from a lawsuit or to assist your lawyer in preparing for litigation in a civil lawsuit or criminal case?
A. Document, document, document everything that happened regarding everything you are complaining about in a diary and make a concise written timeline for all events when it is fresh in your memory. Make copies of e-mails
and letters. Take photographs. Lawyers like me are highly trained and consummate story tellers. The more information we have and the more accurate it is, the better job we can do for you telling your story to the jury and persuading the Court you are a victim of an injustice.
A. No. The employment at-will doctrine has a tortured history as a defense in the Courts and as a result there are numerous exceptions to it. What you are used to hearing from the HR Department when you made a complaint about the way they fired you is that you have to put up with it because you can be “fired for any reason or no reason.” Yet this is not the truth nor an accurate statement of the law. In Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St. 3d 100 (1985) the high court decreed “a general or indefinite hiring is terminable at the will of either employee or the employer” for “any reason or no reason except a reason contrary to law.” It is well established that an employer has a duty to comply with a law that regulates employer and employee conduct whether or not the Plaintiff was
originally hired in a “at-will” capacity and a violation of a statutory duty cannot be excused by claiming the Plaintiff was hired on an at-will basis. No employer can use the “at-will” doctrine to immunize its conduct from the reach of the law including for example but not limited to laws against discrimination, retaliation, unsafe workplaces, or forcing an employee to participate in illegal conduct to keep his or her job, or laws meant to protect employee benefits and wages.
Q. Can I be acquitted in a DUI/DWI case if the government does not have any breath or blood alcohol evidence showing my alleged intoxication because I would not “blow” when arrested?
A. Maybe. On the one hand I would expect the government could not successfully prosecute you because you refused to consent to give a breath or blood sample. Indeed, proof of intoxication requires production of scientific and medical evidence showing the same. On the other hand the government can successfully prosecute you for driving under the influence (DUI) if there is some evidence you were drinking and it impaired your ability to drive. The old refrain “officer I only had two beers” is enough of an admission of fault to get you locked for a DUI conviction if you were driving after drinking two beers and there is proof it adversely affected your driving, such as being seen weaving or speeding. Moreover, there is no guarantee, rightly or wrongly, the Judge will not let the jury hear you refused to consent to the breath test in spite of the fact I would argue that evidence should not come in. The law in this area is in a constant state of flux, every case has different facts, and the current penalties for DUI/DWI are severe so I would not make a decision about what to do when arrested based upon this general discussion. Although it is your right to do so, I would recommend that you should never try to handle any DUI/DWI case, or any criminal case for that matter, by yourself. “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.” If you have questions after reading this you need to talk to a lawyer.
Q. What is the best way to protect yourself from a lawsuit or to assist your lawyer in preparing for litigation in a civil lawsuit or criminal case?
A. Document, document, document everything that happened regarding everything you are complaining about in a diary and make a concise written timeline for all events when it is fresh in your memory. Make copies of e-mails
and letters. Take photographs. Lawyers like me are highly trained and consummate story tellers. The more information we have and the more accurate it is, the better job we can do for you telling your story to the jury and persuading the Court you are a victim of an injustice.
