In Ohio, employers are generally immune from employee lawsuits for injuries that occur in the course and scope of their employment pursuant to the Ohio Workers’ Compensation Act. Instead of filing a lawsuit, Ohio requires employees to file a claim for their injuries with the Ohio Bureau of Workers Compensation. An exception to this rule is that an employee can sue an employer directly if the employer acted with the intent to injure the employee, otherwise known as an employer intentional tort.
Ohio legislators also created a statute called the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act that provides immunity to political subdivisions for most lawsuits unless a specific exception applies. So what happens when an employee of a political subdivision sues his employer for a workplace intentional tort? Is the political subdivision immune from the lawsuit? The Ohio Supreme Court held this month in Samson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 2012-Ohio-570 that a political subdivision is not immune from a workplace intentional tort “if the lawsuit arises out of the employment relationship.”
In 1985, the Ohio General Assembly enacted Chapter 2744, the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. R.C. §2744 essentially provides that political subdivisions are not liable in civil actions for damages for governmental or proprietary functions. However, R.C. §2744 also provides a list of exceptions for when a political subdivision is not immune from a civil lawsuit. The exception at issue is §2744.09(B). R.C. §2744.09(B) exempts immunity to a political subdivision “relative to any matter that arises out of the employment relationship between the employee and the political subdivision.”
The issue in Samson was whether an employer intentional tort “arises” from an employment relationship. The political subdivision argued an employer intentional tort by definition occurs outside of the employment relationship and cannot “arise” from it. Citing prior case law involving workers’ compensation cases, courts held that when an employer intentionally harms an employee, the injury does not “arise out of” the employment relationship and the employer is not immune from a lawsuit pursuant to the Ohio Workers Compensation Act. Therefore, the political subdivision requested the same logic to be applied to the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act and requested the Ohio Supreme Court to hold that an employer intentional tort could not “arise” from the employment relationship.
The Ohio Supreme Court examined the intent of the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act and disagreed. The Court held the intent of the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act is different than the Workers’ Compensation Act and is designed to preserve “the fiscal integrity of political subdivisions”. Id. at ¶ 15. Therefore, the exception to immunity for any claims “arising out of” the employment context applies more broadly to any matter involving a civil action and the employment relationship. As plaintiff’s lawsuit was based on his employer’s direct actions, the Court held the allegations arose out of plaintiff’s employment and the political subdivision was not immune from the lawsuit.
Whether a political subdivision is immune from a lawsuit is not always clear. The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act has many exceptions and can be complicated. Should you have a question regarding whether immunity applies or simply a question regarding this case, feel free to contact anyone of Reminger’s Governmental/Public Entity Liability Group Leaders.