Tarkowsky Employment Law Bulletin: Spring 2013

Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc., 2012 Ohio 5685 (decided 12/6/12)

  • The Supreme Court overturned the Eighth District’s characterization of the Employer Intentional Tort Statute (R.C. §2745.01) as a “scrivener’s error.” The Court held that absent a deliberate intent to injure another, an employer is not liable for a claim alleging an employer intentional tort, and the injured employee’s exclusive remedy is within the workers’ compensation system.

Woodard v. Cassens Transp. Co., 2012 Ohio 4015, (decided 9/4/12)

  • An employer was not held liable for workers’ compensation coverage when a traveling employee, on assignment for the employer, slipped and fell in a hotel bathroom, causing injury. The Court held that although a traveling employee is generally considered to be within the course of employment, the employee must still be performing a required duty done directly or incidentally in the service of the employer as opposed to personal business, disconnected with the employment.

Dohme v. Eurand America, Inc., 2011 Ohio 4609, (Decided 9/15/2011). 

  • An employee alleged that he was wrongfully discharged in violation of “public policy” for communicating workplace safety concerns to an insurance adjuster. However, within his complaint, the employee simply alleged a “public policy” violation without citing to any statute or specific case-law. The Supreme Court held that to satisfy the clarity element of a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, a terminated employee must articulate a clear public policy by citation to specific provisions in the federal or state constitution, federal or state statutes, administrative rules and regulations, or common law. The wrongful discharge claim was dismissed.

San Allen v. Buehrer, Administrator, BWC (Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 2012), No. CV-07-644950

  • The Court found in favor of a class action of “non-group rated” employers contending that that the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation (BWC) implemented a group rating system that inappropriately over-charged non-group rating employers excessive premiums from 2001-2009. The Court then ordered restitution pursuant to a formula created by the Plaintiffs’ expert, in an amount still to be determined, which could exceed $1 billion. The Court also acknowledged that there could be thousands of potential members of the “non-group rated” class that will not receive any restitution under the employer’s expert’s formula.

Ohio Senate Bill 224, signed by Ohio Governor Kasich on June 26, 2012, provides that the statute of limitations for actions based upon written contracts is reduced from fifteen (15) years to eight (8) years. The effect of the statute is retroactive, and took effect September 26, 2012.

Ohio Senate Bill 337, effective September 28, 2012, enacts a new law that attempts to assuage some employer liability concerns that otherwise might result from hiring and retaining individuals with criminal histories. Among other things, the law grants immunity to employers from the alleged negligent hiring of individuals with a prior criminal history who have obtained a “certificate of qualification for employment.”