Workplace injuries occur far too regularly. In many instances, workers’ compensation is the sole remedy for a person who is injured on the job. However, in instances where an employer has intentionally committed wrongdoing that was the cause of an employees’ injury, the employee can sue their employer for damages. The damages in these types of lawsuits frequently result in much larger damage awards than injuries where workers’ compensation is the sole remedy.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Ohio Legislature has tried to pass a number of laws that have attempted to prevent injured employees from suing their employers over intentional acts that lead to injury. In 1991 and in 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court nullified previous attempts by the Ohio Legislature to pass laws that limited the rights of employees seeking to file suit against their employers for injuries suffered due to intentional torts. Despite this, the legislature passed a similar law in 2004.
The statutes at issue, Ohio Revised Code 2745.01(A) and (B), state as follows:
(A) In an action brought against an employer by an employee, or by the dependent survivors of a deceased employee, for damages resulting from an intentional tort committed by the employer during the course of employment, the employer shall not be liable unless the plaintiff proves that the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.
(B) As used in this section, "substantially certain" means that an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.
Upon reading the first part of the statute, it initially appears that an employee injured by an employer’s intentional tort can bring a lawsuit against their employer in two situations. The first situation is when an employer acted with "intent to injure". The second situation is if an employer acted with "the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur".
However, the second part of the statute defines "substantially certain" as acting with "deliberate intent to cause injury". As many have noted, including some branches of the Courts of Appeals in Ohio, acting with "intent to injure" and acting with "the deliberate intent to cause injury" mean the same thing. Therefore, in order to prove an intentional tort on the part of an employer, an employee is forced to prove that an employer acted with deliberate intent under this law.
Ohio courts at the appellate level have held that this is a burden that an employee should not be forced to bear. Section 34, Article II of the Ohio Constitution states that:
"Laws may be passed fixing and regulating the hours of labor, establishing a minimum wage, and providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employees; and no other provision of the constitution shall impair or limit this power."
Ohio courts in different districts have held that by setting such a high standard to prove intent, Ohio Revised Code 2754.01(A) does not provide for the "comfort, health, safety and general welfare" of their employees, and are therefore unconstitutional.
Two cases, Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Products, Co., and Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Services, LLP, are currently before the Supreme Court of Ohio and will determine the constitutionality of this statute. As stated above, the Ohio Supreme Court has already nullified previous attempts by the Ohio Legislature to pass laws that limited the rights of employers seeking to file suit against their employers for intentional torts. Obviously, regardless of how the Court rules, the decision will have lasting consequences for working men and women throughout Ohio.
*article courtesy of Friedman, Domiano, & Smith, Co., LPA.