Ohio Supreme Court: Employers May Not Fire Employees Because Their Workers Compensation Claims Are Denied

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court held that employee-plaintiffs who bring a workers compensation retaliation claim under Ohio Revised Code §4123.90 are not required to prove that they suffered a work-related injury as part of their prima facie case.   Onderko v. Sierra Lobo, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2016-Ohio-5027.   In that case, the plaintiff had been fired a month after his workers compensation claim had been denied by the Industrial Commission and he failed to appeal.  The employer argued on summary judgment that he was fired for bringing a deceptive workers compensation claim and that he could not pursue a retaliation claim because res judicata precluded him from attempting to prove he suffered a workplace injury, which it argued was a predicate for bringing a workers compensation retaliation claim.  However, the appellate courts agreed that such a requirement would mean that employers would only be statutorily prohibited from firing employees who pursued successful claims and could always fire employees who lost their workers compensation claims.  The statute protects employees not only for retaliation after suffering a workplace injury, but also for filing a claim.  Therefore, employees – who can be investigated, discharged and criminally charged for knowingly filing a false claims – do not have to prove that the retaliation they suffered followed a workplace injury.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff employee did not initially report his suspicion that his knee injury was a workplace injury because he knew that his employer was concerned with its safety record and he did not want to lose his job.  He had a clean disciplinary record and had always received positive performance reviews.  However, after his employer refused him light duty and would not permit him to work while taking pain medication, he filed a workers compensation claim, which at one point was approved by the BWC before being denied by the Industrial Commission for not being work related.   By that time, the plaintiff testified that he did not appeal the decision because he had already returned to work and wanted to put it behind him.  Nonetheless, after the appeal period had expired, his employer terminated him for a “deceptive” attempt to obtain workers compensation for a non-work-related injury.  

On summary judgment, the employer argued that res judicata precluded the plaintiff from proving that he suffered a workplace injury in light of the IC’s decision and that suffering a workplace injury was a necessary element of proof before he could prevail on his retaliation claim.   The employer did not attempt to prove, it seems, that the employee lied or that the claim was fraudulent. The trial court granted the employer’s motion, but the appeals court disagreed.  The Supreme Court took jurisdiction in light of a conflict with a different appeals court.

The statute provides in relevant part that:

No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim or instituted, pursued or testified in any proceedings under the workers’ compensation act for an injury or occupational disease which occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment with that employer.

The Court concluded that requiring employees to prove that the injury underlying their workers compensation claim was work-related would chill employees from filing claims, knowing that they could be terminated by their employers if their claim was ultimately disallowed.   Therefore, a failure to appeal the denial of a workers compensation claim does not preclude an employee from later pursuing a workers compensation retaliation claim. “The language of the statute hinges on the employer’s response to the plaintiff’s pursuit of benefits, not the award of benefits.“  Further, “it is the filing of a workers’ compensation claim, not the allowance of the claim, that triggers the statutory protection from discharge.”

Interpreting the statute to prohibit retaliation against only those workers whose claims have been allowed misses the point of the statute, which is to enable employees to freely exercise their rights without fear of retribution from their employers.

                . . .

We therefore hold that a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 requires a plaintiff to prove only that the employer discharged, demoted, reassigned, or took any other punitive action against the plaintiff in retaliation for the plaintiff’s filing a workers’ compensation claim or instituting, pursuing, or testifying in any proceedings under the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Pursuing fraudulent claims remains illegal in Ohio, can be criminally prosecuted and may be grounds for discharge.   However, there was no evidence in this case that the plaintiff had ever been investigated or charged with fraud. “We resist interpreting the antiretaliation statute in such a way that would vest employers with the discretion to label any unsuccessful claim as deceptive and then terminate the employee.”

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 be changed or 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.