*By George S. Crisci
For almost three decades, the Ohio General Assembly has attempted to
limit an employee’s ability to sue an employer on grounds that the
employer’s intentional actions caused a workplace injury or occupational
disease. The Ohio Supreme Court has struck down no fewer than three
such pieces of legislation as unconstitutional since 1982. In the
absence of a limiting statute, Ohio common law has allowed such
“employer intentional tort” suits to proceed outside the workers’
compensation system. As a result, juries have often found employers
subject to increased liability for workplace injuries based, for all
practical purposes, on little more than negligence.
The General Assembly’s string of failed attempts was broken
when the Ohio Supreme Court issued two companion decisions on March 23,
2010, ruling that Ohio Revised Code Section 2754.01, which limits an
employee’s ability to sue an employer for an intentional tort, did not
violate the Ohio Constitution.
The statute, passed in 2005, provides that an employer is
immune from liability when sued by employees or their dependent
survivors for an intentional injury unless the plaintiff proves that the
employer acted with the “intent to injure the employee” or “with the
belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.” The statute
defines the phrase “substantially certain” as meaning that “an employer
acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a
disease, a condition, or death.” The statute further provides that an
employer’s deliberate removal of equipment safety guards or deliberate
misrepresentation of a toxic or hazardous substance creates a rebuttable
presumption that these actions were committed with the intent to injure
another.
In Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products Company,
2010-Ohio-1027, the Ohio Supreme Court found that R.C. §2745.01 did not
violate Sections 34 (authorizing employment workplace laws) and 35
(authorizing workers’ compensation laws) of Article II of the Ohio
Constitution. Specifically, the Court held that those provisions
granted the General Assembly broad authority to enact legislation and
did not prohibit limitations on employer intentional torts. The Court
further explained that because R.C. §2745.01 merely limits, but does not
eliminate, an employee’s ability to sue an employer for intentional
tort, it is constitutional.
In Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, LLC,
2010-Ohio-1029, the Ohio Supreme Court further established the
constitutional validity of R.C. §2745.01. Responding to issues referred
to it by a federal court, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the statute
does not on its face violate a number of the Ohio Constitution’s
provisions including those concerning access to the courts, the right to
a jury trial, and equal protection under the law. Notably, the Ohio
Supreme Court explained that while R.C. §2745.01 does not eliminate the
common-law cause of action for an employer intentional tort, it does
significantly limit an employee’s ability to bring such an action.
Thus, for the first time in almost 30 years, the Ohio Supreme
Court has denied a challenge to limits on the employer intentional tort.
As a result, employers face reduced risk that an employee can
successfully seek to recover for workplace injuries and/or occupational
diseases outside the limits of the workers’ compensation system. Most
importantly, it is now easier for employers to defend against meritless
intentional tort lawsuits and the sizeable damage awards or settlements
that flow from them.
If you have any questions how the unemployment benefits
extension may affect your business, please contact George S. Crisci at
216.696.4441 or gsc@zrlaw.com.
*George S. Crisci is an OSBA Certified
Specialist in Labor and Employment Law and has extensive experience in
all aspects of workplace law. For more information about defending
allegations of public policy discrimination, please contact George at
216.696.4441 or gsc@zrlaw.com.
