Summary
The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed dismissal of John McQueen’s mandamus action against a bank employee. The court held that discrimination claims were barred by res judicata, contract-based claims had an adequate remedy at law, and McQueen had no clear legal right or corresponding duty supporting mandamus against a private individual.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether McQueen was entitled to a writ of mandamus against a private bank employee based on alleged discrimination, denial of a bank bonus, and closure of his account.
- Whether McQueen had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for his alleged entitlement to the bonus or reopening of his account.
- Whether McQueen's discrimination claims were barred by res judicata because they had been litigated and were continuing in federal court.
Holdings
- Mandamus does not lie to enforce a private right against a private person, and McQueen identified neither a clear legal right to the requested relief nor a clear legal duty requiring Weibling-Holliday to provide it.
- Claims for a bank bonus or reopening of the account sound in contract, and a breach-of-contract action is an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law; therefore, mandamus is unavailable.
- McQueen's discrimination claims were barred by res judicata because he had litigated and was continuing to litigate those issues in federal court.
Key quotations
“Mandamus will not lie to enforce a private right against a private person.” (¶ 9)
Factual background
McQueen opened a Chase checking account with a $25 deposit and alleged that he was promised a $125 bonus. After he sought overdraft protection and repeatedly attempted overdrafts, Chase refused the overdrafts; a later confrontation at the branch led employees to call police. McQueen alleged that Weibling-Holliday denied him the bonus because he is a Black Christian and that Chase improperly closed his account.
Procedural history
McQueen filed an original action in the Third District Court of Appeals seeking a writ of mandamus to compel a Chase bank employee to pay him money and restore his account. The court of appeals granted the appellee's motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.