A dispute over employee benefits administration and the reporting of suspected unlawful conduct has led to a lawsuit alleging retaliation and wrongful termination at a local cemetery and funeral home business. The complaint was filed by Angela Ryan in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on March 30, 2026, naming Spring Grove Cemetery & Funeral Homes as the defendant.
According to the court filing, Angela Ryan began working for the defendant in 2015 as Executive Assistant to the CEO and President. She alleges that her employment was terminated in March 2025 after she repeatedly raised concerns about the administration of her Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) benefits and reported suspected illegal wildlife poisoning practices to state authorities.
The complaint outlines several years of issues related to the company’s HRA plan, which was implemented in 2019. Ryan states that she and other employees were not provided with required plan documents such as the Summary Plan Description or other disclosures mandated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Despite repeated requests for clarification regarding eligibility, covered expenses, and plan rules, Ryan alleges that neither Spring Grove’s human resources department nor its third-party administrator provided meaningful explanations or documentation until five years after implementation.
Ryan describes ongoing problems with benefit reimbursements throughout her employment. In 2024, she experienced withholding of reimbursements, inconsistent determinations of eligible expenses, and denial of previously approved claims. She also reports having to push for corrections to her 2022 HRA benefits due to errors by the third-party administrator.
Beyond benefit issues, Ryan’s complaint details what she characterizes as a pattern of hostility from leadership. She cites instances where leadership responded dismissively or abruptly when she raised questions about benefits or workplace conduct. Specific allegations include inappropriate physical contact by senior staff at company events; refusal by leadership to accommodate medically necessary dietary needs; derogatory comments related to her religious beliefs; exclusion from meetings following protected activity; and unequal treatment compared to other employees.
On March 6, 2025, Ryan reports overhearing a statement from the CEO regarding poisoning raccoons on cemetery grounds: “poison the raccoons with a sweet concoction they really like.” After confirming with state authorities that such actions would be unlawful under Ohio regulations, she reported her concerns as instructed by the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to both ODNR and the Hamilton County Wildlife Officer. Following this report, Ryan says she was excluded from further communications about the matter despite being ODNR’s point of contact.
Later that day, Ryan met privately with a new HR Executive who acknowledged longstanding issues between Ryan and leadership but did not disclose that termination was already being considered. According to Ryan’s account in court documents, during this meeting HR asked what could be done to help resolve ongoing issues but also minimized her concerns by framing them as misunderstandings or overreactions.
Six days later on March 12, 2025, Ryan was called into an office meeting with both the CEO and HR Executive present. She states that she was immediately presented with a pre-typed termination letter without being given an opportunity to fully explain her perspective or provide supporting documentation regarding her claims. The letter did not specify any cause for termination.
The complaint asserts multiple causes of action: interference with ERISA rights under federal law; whistleblower retaliation under Ohio Revised Code Section 4113.52; wrongful termination in violation of public policy; and common law retaliation under Ohio law. Ryan alleges that adverse actions—including exclusion from meetings, increased hostility from leadership, undermining of duties, and ultimately dismissal—followed closely after each instance where she engaged in protected activity such as seeking benefit information or reporting suspected illegal conduct.
Ryan seeks relief including front pay through age sixty-five (with lost benefits), compensatory damages for emotional distress and professional harm, liquidated or statutory damages as permitted by law, attorney’s fees and costs, interest on damages awarded before or after judgment is entered by the court, as well as any other relief deemed just.
Angela Ryan is representing herself in this case (pro se). The case identification number is 1:26-cv-00319-DRC-KLL.
Source: 126cv00319_Ryan_v_Spring_Grove_Cemetery_and_Funeral_Homes_Complaint_Southern_District_Ohio.pdf
