Ohio Supreme Court: Criminal Conviction Is Not Required For Employee To Pursue Civil Claims Based on Alleged Criminal Acts

At the end of July, the Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio Revised Code §2307.60 (which imposes civil liability for injuries caused by criminal acts) does not require evidence of an underlying criminal conviction.  Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 2020-Ohio-3832.   Similarly, the Court held that a criminal conviction is not required to pursue a civil action under Ohio Revised Code §2921.03 prohibiting unlawful threats and other acts of intimidation against a public servant or witness in the discharge of that person’s duty.  The Court relied on the plain meaning of the statutes and the absence of the word “conviction” in describing the claims.  All of these claims were brought by a former county health district employee against her former employer, supervisors and various county officials.

According to the Court’s opinion, the plaintiff filed a civil rights and anti-discrimination lawsuit in federal court against her former employer county health district, her former supervisor and various County officials.   One of those claims involved a civil claim based on the violation of various criminal statutes involving misconduct towards public officials, including retaliation and intimidation and when public officials violate someone’s civil rights.  The federal court sought guidance on the Court’s view of these Ohio statutes in two certified questions. 

R.C. § 2307.60(A)(1) provides that:

Anyone injured in person or property by a criminal act has, and may recover full damages in, a civil action unless specifically excepted by law, may recover the costs of maintaining the civil action and attorney's fees if authorized by any provision of the Rules of Civil Procedure or another section of the Revised Code or under the common law of this state, and may recover punitive or exemplary damages if authorized by section 2315.21 or another section of the Revised Code.

The Court noted that the Legislature did not explicitly require an underlying criminal conviction, and instead, referred simply to a “criminal act.” The initiation of criminal proceedings may or may not be important and even then does not always result in a criminal prosecution or conviction. Therefore, the plain meaning of the statute did not require a criminal conviction in order to pursue a claim. Further, the rest of the statue creates a rebuttable presumption based on a judgment of conviction, which would be unnecessary if a conviction were always required.

Similarly, R.C. §2921.03(C) provides that:

A person who violates this section is liable in a civil action to any person harmed by the violation for injury, death, or loss to person or property incurred as a result of the commission of the offense and for reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, and other expenses incurred as a result of prosecuting the civil action commenced under this division. A civil action under this division is not the exclusive remedy of a person who incurs injury, death, or loss to person or property as a result of a violation of this section.

The Court likewise found controlling the absence of the word “conviction” from the statute. Therefore, “we are not persuaded by petitioners’ argument that the 'commission of the offense' necessarily means that a formal declaration of criminal guilt has occurred.” As with the other statute, “being the subject of a criminal proceeding is not the equivalent of being convicted of the crimes charged. And the word conviction is not in the statute. Without any clear indication from the legislature in the language of the statute that a conviction is required, we decline to read such intent into the statute.”

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.