Pursuant to ORC § 2744.02, a political subdivision enjoys governmental immunity for acts related to governmental or proprietary functions. However, immunity is not absolute; along with exceptions to immunity set forth in ORC § 2744.02(B), ORC § 2744.09 sets forth specific instances where immunity does not apply, which includes “[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.” Recently, the Eighth District Court of Appeals applied ORC § 2744.09(B) to deny summary judgment to the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority.
In Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority, 188 Ohio App.3d 250, 2010-Ohio-3415, Plaintiff Sampson was an employee of the Defendant, working as a plumber. He was provided with a vehicle to perform his job, but the vehicle changed from day to day; each vehicle had a gas credit card assigned to it. After receiving a tip regarding inappropriate use of a gas credit card relating to another employee, company detectives opened a large investigation that went on for many months. Eventually, a company meeting was called, at which time thirteen individuals, including Plaintiff, were identified and told they were under arrest; the arrests were made in front of approximately 200 fellow employees. Sampson spent the night in jail and was subsequently indicted for theft, misuse of credit cards, and theft in office. The charges against Sampson were dismissed nearly five months later.
After the charges against Sampson were dropped, arbitration was conducted pursuant to the terms of the collective bargaining agreement to determine if Sampson could return to work. The arbitrator determined that CMHA failed to present any evidence of theft by Sampson and ordered he be reinstated. When he returned to work his duties were different, he was not allowed to retrieve his own equipment, and was not allowed to drive a company vehicle. Sampson filed suit against CMHA as well as against several individuals involved in the investigation alleging abuse of process, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, and negligent misidentification.
As an affirmative defense CMHA argued it was entitled to political subdivision immunity under ORC § 2744.02. Sampson argued that immunity did not apply pursuant to ORC § 2744.09 because his injuries/damages arose from the employment relationship. The Eighth District agreed with Sampson, finding that all the claims “clearly arose out of his employment relationship, thus barring CMHA from asserting immunity.” In support of this finding, the Court reasoned that Sampson was required to attend the meeting, the meeting took place during the workday, the meeting was conducted on CMHA property, and he was arrested in front of his fellow CMHA employees.
Turning to the individual defendants, after stating that governmental employees are presumed to be immune from suit, the Eighth District determined that an exception applies in this case because a question of fact remained as to whether the employees acted wanton or recklessly. Specifically, the scope and length of the investigation involving Sampson was questioned. This required a factual determination by a jury.
This case is significant since it provides guidance regarding when an employee’s claims arises out of the employment relationship. The Court analyzed several cases involving similar fact patterns in reaching its conclusions. If the individuals who were arrested, including Sampson, had been arrested after work or before work, and had not been arrested on company property in front of their co-workers, then arguably ORC § 2744.09 would not act to prevent CMHA from raising the affirmative defense of political subdivision immunity.
If you have any questions or need guidance in any issue regarding governmental liability, please contact a member of our Government/Public Entity Liability Group.
