Onderko v. Sierra Lobo, Inc. (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 156
Ohio2016Background
- Michael Onderko injured his right knee on August 9, 2012; he filed a First Report of Injury and pursued a BWC claim while seeking light-duty work from employer Sierra Lobo, Inc.
- BWC initially denied, then allowed, then the Industrial Commission later denied compensability; Onderko did not appeal that final denial.
- Sierra Lobo terminated Onderko on December 12, 2012, citing a "deceptive" workers’ compensation claim.
- Onderko sued under R.C. 4123.90 for retaliatory discharge, alleging termination for filing/pursuing a workers’ compensation claim.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Sierra Lobo; the Sixth District reversed, holding that proof of a work-related injury is not an element of an R.C. 4123.90 claim.
- Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to resolve conflict with Fifth District (Kilbarger) and held that R.C. 4123.90 does not require proof that the injury was work-related to make out a prima facie retaliatory-discharge claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Onderko) | Defendant's Argument (Sierra Lobo) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prima facie R.C. 4123.90 retaliatory-discharge claim requires proof the injury occurred at work | Statutory protection is triggered by filing/pursuing a claim; requiring proof of compensability would chill claims | R.C. 4123.90’s language ("which occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment") requires proof of a workplace injury; res judicata should bar relitigation after Industrial Commission denial | No. The statute protects employees who file/pursue/testify in workers’ compensation proceedings; proof the injury was work-related is not an element of the prima facie claim |
| Whether failure to appeal an adverse Industrial Commission decision bars an R.C. 4123.90 claim | Not required; compensability is not an element, so failure to appeal does not preclude a retaliation suit | Failure to appeal should preclude relitigation and a retaliation claim based on that injury | No. Because work-relatedness is not an element, not appealing the Commission decision does not foreclose an R.C. 4123.90 claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Riverside Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 8 (establishes pleading elements for R.C. 4123.90 retaliation claim)
- Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School Dist., 100 Ohio St.3d 141 (explains antiretaliation statute purpose and public-policy protection)
- Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 129 Ohio St.3d 153 (recognizes public-policy wrongful-discharge protection tied to R.C. 4123.90)
- Kilbarger v. Anchor Hocking Glass Co., 120 Ohio App.3d 332 (Fifth District case holding compensability is required; conflict resolved against it)
- Bunger v. Lawson, 82 Ohio St.3d 463 (background on Ohio workers’ compensation system)