Ohio Supreme Court: Negligent Hiring and Supervision Claims Are Not Dependent on Underlying Civil or Criminal Judgment and Are Subject to Two Year Limitations Period.

This morning, the Ohio Supreme Court unanimously addressed the evidence necessary to prove a claim that the defendant employer negligently hired and supervised an employee who the plaintiff had never sued, had never been held civilly liable for the alleged wrongdoing and had never been found guilty of any crime. Evans v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-5535.   While refusing to address all of the necessary elements of a negligent supervision or hiring claim, the Court held that “a plaintiff need not show that an employee has been adjudicated civilly liable or has been found guilty of a crime by a court in order for the plaintiff to maintain a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claim against an employer.”  In other words, “a plaintiff must establish that an employee committed a wrong recognized as a tort or crime in the state of Ohio, and not that the wrong has been proven to be tortious or criminal in a court proceeding.” Furthermore, the plaintiff also need not file the negligent hiring/supervision claim within the limitations period for the underlying wrongful action.   The two-year limitations period for negligent hiring and supervision does not shift based on the underlying wrongful act.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff brought suit against the defendant employer alleging that one of its physicians had sexually assaulted her after she had been administered a narcotic.  She had never sued the physician and the criminal investigation did not result in any charges being brought.    She did not file suit until the one-year intentional tort limitations had run against the physician.  The trial court granted the employer summary judgment based on the plaintiff’s failure to establish criminal or civil liability against the employee physician.   While the appellate court disagreed that a civil or criminal judgment on the underlying misconduct was necessary, it still held that the plaintiff must file the action within the limitations period for the underlying wrongful act.

The Court found that its prior precedent had focused on whether the underlying alleged misconduct was even unlawful and whether the employer owed an independent duty.  “A negligent hiring, retention, or supervision action is a direct claim against an employer, based on an employee’s conduct that the law regards as wrongful that would not have occurred but for the employer’s failure to properly hire, supervise, or retain the employee.”  Because there were disputed questions of fact as to whether the employee physician in this case had engaged in the alleged misconduct and the plaintiff was not required to first prove that the physician employee had been found either civilly or criminally liable, summary judgment was inappropriate on that basis. 

The Court also rejected the alternative appellate holding: that the plaintiff’s lawsuit was untimely because she filed suit within the two-years required for negligence, but not within the one-year limitations period for the underlying intentional tort of sexual assault.  “The employee must be shown to have committed an act that is legally wrongful, irrespective of whether he or she has been or can be held legally accountable. We see no reason to conclude that the statute of limitations for a negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claim is affected by the statute of limitations governing the underlying legally wrongful conduct of the employee.” 

Moreover, in the trial court, neither AGMC nor Evans disputed the term of the statute of limitations for a negligent hiring, supervision, or retention claim. The court of appeals relied on R.C. 2305.10 in determining that the applicable statute of limitations is two years. 2018-Ohio-3031 at ¶ 9. Because Evans’s claim is directly against AGMC for its negligent hiring, supervision, or retention, it makes little sense for us to establish a statute of limitations that shifts depending on the facts of the employee’s underlying tort or crime instead of deferring to R.C. 2305.10(A).

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.