Schwartz v. Comcorp, Inc.

             OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
     NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

Schwartz, Appellant, v. Comcorp, Inc., d.b.a. Sun Newspapers,
et al., Appellees.
[Schwartz v. Comcorp, Inc. (1994),     Ohio St.3d    .]
Appeal dismissed as improvidently allowed.
     (No. 93-588 -- Submitted March 30, 1994 -- Decided May 4,
1994.)
     Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No.
63479.

     Kramer & Tobocman Co., L.P.A., and Suzanne M. Nigro;
Friedman & Gilbert and Terry Gilbert, for appellant.
     Duvin, Cahn, Barnard & Messerman, Andrew C. Meyer and
Robert M. Wolff, for appellees.
     Spater, Gittes, Schulte & Kolman and Frederick M. Gittes;
Louis A. Jacobs; and William Johnson, urging reversal for
amicus curiae, Ohio Employment Lawyers Association.

     The appeal is dismissed, sua sponte, as having been
improvidently allowed.
     Moyer, C.J., Wright, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
     A.W. Sweeney, Douglas and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
     Douglas, J., dissenting.     I respectfully dissent. I
would reverse the court of appeals on the election-of-remedy
issue but affirm the court of appeals on the merit issue of
alleged age discrimination. There is no age discrimination in
this case and appellees are entitled to have a final judgment
from this court on this issue.
     A.W. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur in the foregoing
dissenting opinion.