The Ohio Supreme Court recently determined that intentional tort claims asserted by employees of political subdivisions are not barred by the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act. The Court ruled that because intentional torts “arise” out of an employment relationship, immunity for intentional torts may not exist, increasing potential liability exposure for political subdivision.
In Vacha v.City of North Ridgeville, the plaintiff, Lisa Vacha, asserted a claim against her employer, the City of North Ridgeville. The City hired Vacha to work at a wastewater treatment plant in March 2000. In March 2004, North Ridgeville hired Charles Ralston, the father of two of the Mayor’s grandchildren, to work at the same wastewater treatment facility. Because of the City’s failure to conduct a criminal background check, and because of selective questioning in the interview, the City did not discover that between 1994 and 1999, Ralston was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, assault, and disorderly conduct. Vacha and Ralston were employed at the same wastewater treatment facility from March 2004 until June 2006. Despite one verbal altercation, Vacha and Ralston worked together at the wastewater treatment facility without any issue until June 2006, and they even socialized outside of work.
On June 2, 2006, Vacha picked Ralston up and drove him to the plant for the night shift they were scheduled to work together. During their shift, Vacha allowed Ralston to drive her truck to purchase beer. After returning to the plant, Ralston raped and assaulted Vacha. Vacha fled the plant on foot and reported the rape to police. Ralston was convicted and sentenced to prison.
In June 2008, Vacha filed a civil complaint against Ralston and North Ridgeville. It alleged four claims against the City, including: (1) negligent hiring and supervision; (2) vicarious liability; (3) reckless hiring and supervision; and (4) intentional, willful and wanton disregard for the safety of others in selecting, supervising, and controlling Ralston, an employer intentional tort. The issue before the Ohio Supreme Court was whether the City was immune under Ohio’s Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act for the employer intentional tort claim.
The Court examined the Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, which provides that political subdivisions are generally immune from liability for damages in civil actions: “except as provided in Division (B) of this section, a political subdivision is not liable for damages in a civil action for injury, death, or loss to person or property allegedly caused by an act or omission of the political subdivision or an employee of the political subdivision in connection with a governmental or proprietary function.” O.R.C. 2744.02(A)(1). The Supreme Court recognized that the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, however, does not apply to “[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.” O.R.C. 2744.09(B). (Emphasis added). The purpose of the exception is to protect public employees by allowing them to recover against their employers who would otherwise be entitled to immunity.
When the Ohio Supreme Court examined cases applying the Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, it concluded that a civil action by an employee of a political subdivision alleging an intentional tort against his or her employer may fall within the exception to the immunity because it arises out of the employment relationship. This ruling thus extends liability to political subdivisions for employer intentional tort claims. Political subdivisions in Ohio need to be aware of this recent development and ensure that their policies and procedures work to minimize these claims.
If you would like a full copy of this opinion, or have any questions concerning governmental/public entity liability, feel free to call one of our Government Liability Practice Group members.
