In a compelling legal battle, a former employee has taken her grievances to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, alleging misconduct and abuse of process by her previous employer. On December 31, 2025, Alby Wu filed an appeal against Reproductive Gynecology, LLC in the Summit County Court of Appeals, asserting that her former employer engaged in unethical practices and retaliated against her through legal maneuvers.
The case centers around Ms. Wu’s allegations that an employee at Reproductive Gynecology, identified as C.P., exploited his position to engage in inappropriate sexual relationships with female employees and allegedly sexually assaulted Ms. Wu. She claims that despite these serious accusations, the company chose to ignore the misconduct and allowed it to continue within its clinics. Furthermore, Ms. Wu asserts that when she raised these issues, Reproductive Gynecology retaliated by filing a defamation lawsuit against her in Franklin County, Ohio (Case No. 20-CV-8213), which she describes as “false litigation” intended to silence her.
Ms. Wu’s complaint further details how she was coerced into signing a non-disclosure agreement that prohibited her from disclosing any unethical conduct or crimes committed by the company or its employees. Despite this agreement, she pursued legal action against C.P. in Delaware County for his alleged actions. In response, Reproductive Gynecology filed another lawsuit against Ms. Wu in Franklin County (Case No. 21-CV-2008), accusing her of breaching the non-disclosure agreement and seeking a preliminary injunction.
The crux of Ms. Wu’s appeal is her claim that Reproductive Gynecology misused the legal system as a tool for coercion rather than justice—a classic example of abuse of process according to Ohio law. She argues that the company’s lawsuits were not genuinely about breach of contract but were strategically used to pressure her into dropping her claims against C.P., leveraging court documents as threats outside judicial proceedings.
Despite these assertions, the trial court dismissed Ms. Wu’s complaint under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted—an outcome now contested on appeal. The court found that Ms. Wu did not adequately demonstrate how Reproductive Gynecology perverted legal proceedings for ulterior motives beyond their stated purpose.
Seeking redress from the appellate court, Ms. Wu aims to overturn this dismissal and amend her complaint with additional evidence supporting her claims of abuse of process and retaliation by Reproductive Gynecology.
Representing herself pro se in this complex litigation underscores both the personal stakes involved for Ms. Wu and highlights broader concerns about power dynamics within corporate structures where such allegations arise.
The case is presided over by Judge Betty Sutton with participation from Judges Hensal and Carr—the latter dissenting from the majority opinion favoring dismissal—underscoring differing judicial interpretations regarding procedural fairness and potential misuse of legal processes.
This case continues under Case ID CV-2025-03-1466 with attorney Brandon T. Pauley representing Reproductive Gynecology LLC.
Source: 2025Ohio5848_Wu_v_Reproductive_Gynecology_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf