2019 Ohio 2499
Ohio2019Background
- Piazza worked for Cuyahoga County (Board of Revision) until reassigned in Aug. 2010 and then terminated in March 2011; County Executive FitzGerald issued a statement linking three terminations to reorganization after media reports of BOR misconduct.
- The Plain Dealer published articles the day of Piazza’s termination quoting FitzGerald and using a photo provided by the county; Piazza alleges the statement created a false inference tying her to the BOR scandal.
- Piazza sued the county and the paper for false-light invasion of privacy (original suit dismissed; she refiled in 2015). The county moved for summary judgment asserting political-subdivision immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- Trial court denied summary judgment on immunity and timeliness; on interlocutory review, the Eighth District affirmed, holding R.C. 2744.09(B) bars application of Chapter 2744 immunity to employee suits that arise out of the employment relationship.
- Ohio Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether R.C. 2744.09(B) requires the plaintiff to be a current employee at the time the claim accrued or was filed, and whether Piazza’s claim arose from her employment relationship.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.09(B) requires ongoing employment at time claim accrues or is filed | R.C. 2744.09(B) covers employee suits that "arise out of the employment relationship" regardless of whether plaintiff is a former employee when suit is filed | R.C. 2744.09(B) applies only to suits "by an employee" meaning a current employee at the time the tort occurred or suit was filed; ambiguity must be resolved in favor of immunity | R.C. 2744.09(B) does not impose a temporal requirement; statute looks to causal connection to employment, not timing—a former employee can invoke §2744.09(B) if claim arises out of the employment relationship |
| Whether a causal connection exists between Piazza’s false-light claim and her employment | Piazza: FitzGerald’s statement directly related to her termination and performance, so claim arises from employment relationship | County: Statement occurred after termination and thus is not employment-related; immunity applies | The Court found no genuine factual dispute: the statement concerned and coincided with Piazza’s termination and thus is "relative to" a matter that arises out of the employment relationship |
| Whether courts must construe ambiguities favoring immunity | County: ambiguous exceptions to immunity should be narrowly construed to preserve immunity | Piazza: R.C. 2744.09(B) is a carve-out from Chapter 2744 and does not call for presumptive immunity; legislative intent supports broader reading | Court: R.C. 2744.09(B) operates to remove certain employee suits from Chapter 2744’s immunity framework, so the presumption in favor of immunity does not control here |
| Whether R.C. 2744.09(B) timing is measured by occurrence of tort or by causal nexus to employment | Piazza: timing is irrelevant so long as causal nexus exists | County: statute’s present tense "arises" implies ongoing employment when claim accrued/was filed | Court: "arises out of" is a causal-connection test; present tense does not create a temporal limitation |
Key Cases Cited
- Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth., 131 Ohio St.3d 418 (2012) (employee intentional-tort suits may nevertheless "arise out of" employment for §2744.09(B) purposes)
- Vacha v. N. Ridgeville, 136 Ohio St.3d 199 (2013) (§2744.09(B) depends on causal connection between claim and employment relationship)
- Friebel v. Visiting Nurse Assn. of Mid-Ohio, 142 Ohio St.3d 425 (2014) (distinguishing "in the course of" from "arising out of" in workers’ compensation context)
- Gessner v. Union, 159 Ohio App.3d 43 (2004) (termination is a matter that arises out of the employment relationship)