Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc.
129 Ohio St. 3d 153
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Sutton was injured on April 14, 2008, and fired within about an hour without stated reason.
- He filed a R.C. 4123.90 claim and a common-law wrongful-discharge claim after the firing.
- The trial court granted judgment on the pleadings for the employer as to both claims.
- The Second District affirmed part of the judgment by recognizing the wrongful-discharge claim but did not address remedies.
- The Supreme Court held that public policy supports a common-law wrongful-discharge claim in this gap period, but remedies are limited to those in R.C. 4123.90 and the causation/overriding-justification elements are to be proved on remand.
- The dissent argues that R.C. 4123.90 provides exclusive remedies and there is no statutory gap to fill.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Ohio recognize a wrongful-discharge claim when retaliation occurs before a workers’ compensation filing? | Sutton argues public policy protects such employees from retaliatory action. | Tomco contends no statutory protection exists for pre-filing retaliation. | Yes; court recognizes the claim based on public policy. |
| Are remedies for the wrongful-discharge claim limited to R.C. 4123.90? | Remedies should follow the common-law tort framework. | Remedies are limited to those expressly provided in R.C. 4123.90. | Remedies are limited to those listed in R.C. 4123.90. |
| Does the jeopardy element support recognizing the tort given statutory remedies are capped by 4123.90? | Remedies under 4123.90 are inadequate to deter the conduct. | Remedies within the statute suffice to protect public policy. | Yes; jeopardy satisfied, allowing the common-law claim to proceed on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greeley v. Miami Valley Maintenance Contrs., Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 228 (1990) (establishes public-policy exception to at-will employment.)
- Bryant v. Dayton Casket Co., 69 Ohio St.2d 367 (1982) (mere intention to pursue a claim insufficient under R.C. 4123.90.)
- Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 351 (2007) (exclusive remedy; contrasts common-law with workers’ compensation framework.)
- Roseborough v. N.L. Industries, 10 Ohio St.3d 142 (1984) (warned against ‘footrace’ interpretation delaying protection.)
- Collins v. Rizkana, 73 Ohio St.3d 65 (1995) (full common-law remedies available when statutory remedies are lacking.)
- Helmick v. Cincinnati Word Processing, Inc., 45 Ohio St.3d 131 (1989) (statutory remedies supplement, not restrict, common-law protections.)