2014 Ohio 4260
Ohio2014Background
- Parraz injured at work on July 20, 2010 and treated the next day; placed on restricted duties and later returned to light duty.
- Attendance policy in Parraz’s union contract used a point system (1/2 to 2 points per tardy/absence) with 14 points triggering termination.
- Parraz already had 10.5 points at injury and 12 by September 9, 2010; a final written warning followed.
- Parraz was terminated on February 11, 2011 after reaching 14 points; she sought temporary-total-disability (TTD) benefits beginning February 14, 2011.
- Industrial-claim benefits were denied because termination was found to be voluntary abandonment under the attendance policy; Court of Appeals upheld the denial.
- This appeal addresses whether termination for policy violation constitutes voluntary abandonment and whether a nexus to the industrial injury supports TT compensation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether termination for policy violation constitutes voluntary abandonment precluding TT benefits. | Parraz argues absences were negligent, not willful, so not voluntary abandonment. | Diamond Crystal contends termination due to violation of a clear written rule; resulting in voluntary abandonment. | Yes; termination due to policy violation constitutes voluntary abandonment precluding TT benefits. |
| Whether there is a causal link between the industrial injury and loss of earnings to support TT benefits. | Absences/tardiness were caused by the injury. | No contemporaneous medical evidence tying absences to the injury; earnings loss not shown. | No causal link established; TT benefits denied. |
| Whether employer bore the burden to prove the employee knew the violation would lead to discharge. | Burden on employer to show intentional misconduct. | Employer proved she knew the policy and understood discharge consequences. | Employer met its burden; termination supported by policy violation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 650 N.E.2d 469 (1995) (discharge may constitute voluntary abandonment when driven by written rule violation known to employee)
- Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp., 68 Ohio St.3d 118, 623 N.E.2d 1202 (1993) (discharge can reflect voluntary abandonment if linked to policy violation by employee)
- Brown v. Hoover Universal, Inc., 132 Ohio St.3d 520, 2012-Ohio-3895, 974 N.E.2d 1198 (2012) (negligent or careless conduct may rise to voluntary abandonment in some contexts)
- McCoy v. Dedicated Transport, Inc., 97 Ohio St.3d 25, 2002-Ohio-5305, 776 N.E.2d 51 (2002) (causation requirement for TT benefits; must show injury caused loss of earnings)