Wright v. Therm-O-Link, 2016 Ohio 7840

Richard Wright, a machine operator at Therm-O-Link, was injured when his left hand was pulled into the pinchpoint of a BY1 extrusion machine’s caterpuller while the safety guard was raised.
Therm-O-Link’s handbook required safety guards down and prohibited cell phones on the factory floor; violation was a terminable offense. Wright was trained and tested and knew the guard policy.
OSHA inspected after the accident, found safety violations, and Therm-O-Link later modified the guard to be transparent; Wright returned to work but was fired months later when his cell phone was found at the plant.
Wright and his wife sued for employer intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01 and for wrongful (retaliatory) discharge in violation of public policy; trial court granted summary judgment for Therm-O-Link on both claims.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued (1) the evidence (expert affidavit alleging inadequate guarding, training, and pressure for productivity) showed injury was "substantially certain" and thus constituted deliberate intent under R.C. 2745.01; and (2) termination was pretextual retaliation for filing an OSHA complaint.
The trial court found plaintiffs failed to show deliberate intent under R.C. 2745.01 and failed to rebut Therm-O-Link’s legitimate business justification for firing (enforced no-cell-phone policy previously applied in 12 terminations).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether R.C. 2745.01 permits recovery by proving injury was "substantially certain" (deliberate intent) rather than specific intent to injure	Wright asserted expert proof of inadequate guards/training and productivity pressure shows injury was substantially certain and allows inference of deliberate intent	Therm-O-Link argued statute requires actual intent to injure; plaintiffs' evidence at best shows wanton misconduct, not deliberate intent	Court held R.C. 2745.01 requires actual/deliberate intent to injure; plaintiffs’ evidence did not show deliberate intent, so summary judgment proper
Whether Wright’s termination was wrongful/retaliatory (public-policy claim)	Plaintiffs argued close timing after OSHA complaint permits inference of retaliation and cell-phone enforcement was pretextual	Therm-O-Link showed legitimate business justification: written no-cell-phone policy, Wright’s admission, and prior consistent enforcement (12 prior terminations)	Court held plaintiffs failed to show pretext or rebut defendant’s justification; summary judgment proper

Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2745.01 requires specific/deliberate intent to injure to establish employer intentional tort)
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. DTJ Enters., 143 Ohio St.3d 197 (Ohio 2015) (followed Kaminski on R.C. 2745.01 interpretation)
Talik v. Fed. Marine Terminals, Inc., 117 Ohio St.3d 496 (Ohio 2008) (discussing legislative modification of common-law employer intentional-tort standard)
Stetter v. R.J. Corman Derailment Servs., L.L.C., 125 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 2010) (R.C. 2745.01 does not eliminate common-law employer intentional-tort cause of action)
Doody v. Centerior Energy Corp., 137 Ohio App.3d 673 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000) (common-law wrongful-discharge elements and relation to statutory whistleblower claims)
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St.3d 134 (Ohio 1997) (public-policy wrongful-discharge principles)
Painter v. Graley, 70 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 1994) (formulation of wrongful-discharge elements)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (burden-shifting framework for proving pretext)