Creveling v. Lakepark Industries, Inc., 169 N.E.3d 21

Background

Bradd Creveling, a tool-and-die maker at Lakepark since 2008, was trained that Kevlar gloves were prohibited on rotating equipment but admitted to routinely wearing them.
On September 13, 2016 Creveling’s right middle finger was amputated when metal chips wrapped around his Kevlar glove while using a Bridgeport milling machine; OSHA was notified and Lakepark later added a plexiglass shield.
Lakepark filed a workers’ compensation claim for Creveling; he received benefits and was off work several months, then returned and received medical clearance.
After the injury Lakepark issued a final written warning and three-day suspension for gross misconduct and for violating the no-Kevlar-gloves rule; Creveling signed the corrective-action form.
On May 8–9, 2017 supervisors observed Creveling wearing Kevlar gloves at a profiler/grinder, sent him home pending investigation, and then terminated him for violating the corrective action. Creveling sued for workers’ compensation retaliation, disability discrimination, public-policy wrongful termination, employer intentional tort, and loss of consortium.
The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants; the Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Workers’ compensation retaliation (R.C. 4123.90)	Termination shortly after return from WC benefits shows causal link/retaliation	Termination was for violation of corrective action (no-Kevlar policy); temporal gap from filing and lack of other evidence of causation	Aff’d — no genuine issue of causation; employer showed legitimate, nonretaliatory reason; plaintiff failed to show pretext
Disability discrimination (R.C. 4112.02)	Amputation substantially limited major life activities and/or employer regarded him as disabled; termination related to disability	Plaintiff was not shown to be "disabled" under statute or to be perceived as disabled; termination was for policy violation	Aff’d — plaintiff failed to prove disability or perceived disability and failed to link disability to termination
Wrongful termination in violation of public policy	Participation in OSHA investigation/unsafe conditions claim triggers public-policy protection	Plaintiff did not cite a specific statutory/regulatory provision creating clear public policy; mere participation in OSHA investigation here insufficient	Aff’d — clarity element not met; Kulch limited to employees who file OSHA complaints, not mere participation here
Employer intentional tort (R.C. 2745.01)	Employer failed to repair E‑Stop/Z‑axis and failed to install point‑of‑operation guard; deliberate conduct made injury substantially certain	E‑Stop and Z‑axis are not "equipment safety guards"; no evidence manufacturer provided a guard or that employer deliberately removed a guard	Aff’d — E‑Stop/Z‑axis not safety guards as a matter of law; no deliberate removal or failure-to-attach liability proven for a manufacturer‑supplied guard
Loss of consortium (derivative)	Derivative of husband’s claims	Dependent on outcome of husband’s claims	Aff’d — fails because underlying claims fail

Key Cases Cited

Lorain Natl. Bank v. Saratoga Apts., 61 Ohio App.3d 127, 572 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989) (summary-judgment standard)
Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64, 375 N.E.2d 46 (Ohio 1978) (summary-judgment standard)
Onderko v. Sierra Lobo, Inc., 20 N.E.3d 322 (6th Dist. 2014) (burden-shifting framework for workers’ compensation retaliation)
Harris v. OHNH EMP, L.L.C., 37 N.E.3d 1256 (Ohio App. 2015) (pretext standards and causation analysis)
Miller v. Maryland Dept. of Nat. Resources, [citation="813 F. App'x 869"] (4th Cir. 2020) (interpretation of "substantially limits" under ADA/ADAAA)
Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65, 652 N.E.2d 653 (Ohio 1995) (elements for public-policy wrongful-discharge claim)
Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co., 19 Ohio St.3d 100, 483 N.E.2d 150 (Ohio 1985) (at-will employment background)
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134, 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997) (OSHA filing can satisfy clarity element)
Hewitt v. L.E. Myers Co., 134 Ohio St.3d 199, 981 N.E.2d 795 (Ohio 2012) (definition of "deliberate removal" for equipment safety guards)