In Bernard, the employee was terminated from her position and filed
for unemployment compensation. However,
the ODJFS found that she had only earned $125/week in taxable wages in the
prior 20 weeks, making her ineligible.
She appealed the denial of benefits on the grounds that she had deferred
$900/month to her FSA in the employer’s cafeteria plan. The relevant statute provides that all
compensation should be considered, except for payments made on behalf of an
employee to a cafeteria benefit plan. 26 U.S.C. § 3306(b)(5)(G).
While the statute is ambiguous, the UCBR’s interpretation was
reasonable, and therefore, must be affirmed. The Court also rejected the
employee’s argument that the statute was required to be construed in her favor
in light of the UCRB’s reasonable interpretation.
In Vacha, the plaintiff was raped by a co-worker who had been hired at
the behest of the town’s mayor and who had been the delinquent-child support
paying father of two of the mayor’s grandchildren. While he did not have a felony criminal
record, he had been convicted of domestic violence and disorderly conduct. The city did not conduct any criminal
background check. The plaintiff filed suit alleging, among other
things, negligent hiring/supervision and the intentional tort of acting
“intentionally with willful, wanton disregard for the safety of others, in
selecting, supervising or otherwise controlling” the now-convicted rapist. The City alleged that it was immune from suit
under Ohio Revised Code §2744.02. The statute, however, does not apply to “[c]ivil
actions by an employee * * * against his political subdivision relative to any
matter that arises out of the employment relationship between the employee
and the political subdivision.” (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2744.09(B).” While the City argued that an intentional
tort does not arise out of the employment relationship, the Court had
subsequently held otherwise in Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 131
Ohio St.3d 418, 2012-Ohio-570:
1.
When an
employee of a political subdivision brings a civil action against the political
subdivision alleging an intentional tort, that civil action may qualify as a
“matter that arises out of the employment relationship” within the meaning of
R.C. 2744.09(B).
2.
An employee’s action against his or her
political subdivision employer arises out of the employment relationship between
the employee and the political subdivision within the meaning of R.C. 2744.09(B) if there is a
causal connection or a causal relationship between the claims raised by the
employee and the employment relationship.
The Court then turned to whether the plaintiff’s intentional
tort in this case came within the types of claims recognized in §2744.09(B):
To resolve the discretionary appeal here, Sampson requires
consideration of whether there is a causal connection or causal relationship between
Vacha’s intentional-tort claim and her employment relationship. If there is,
then Vacha’s claim arises out of the employment relationship and the city may not
claim political-subdivision immunity. If, on the other hand, there is no causal
connection or causal relationship, then the city may be entitled to immunity
under R.C. Chapter 2744.
While the
rape might have been unrelated to the employment relationship, her claim
related to the City’s alleged misconduct in how it hired and supervised the
rapist. “It is a causal connection or causal relationship between
that alleged conduct and [the plaintiff’s] employment relationship that governs
the applicability of R.C. 2744.09(B) here. While this case does not present the
clear causal relationship that existed in Sampson
(where the employer had the employee-plaintiff arrested at work), “[a]
plaintiff need only establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether
the plaintiff’s claims are causally related or causally connected to the
employment relationship to survive summary judgment.”
Neither the trial
court nor the court of appeals, however, considered whether the particular
evidence in this case established a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether there is a causal connection or a causal relationship between North
Ridgeville’s selection, supervision, and control of Ralston, and Vacha’s
employment relationship with the city. We decline to make that determination in the first instance.
Nonetheless,
because the employer failed to show that “is entitled to
political-subdivision immunity on Vacha’s employer-intentional-tort claim as a
matter of law,” the denial was summary judgment was affirmed.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and
alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and
does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead
to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
