Zumwalde v. Madeira & Indian Hill Joint Fire District
128 Ohio St. 3d 492
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Zumwalde sued Madeira and Indian Hill Joint Fire District for unlawful employment discrimination; dispute resolved with a contingent full-time offer pending a physical exam.
- Zumwalde’s July 14, 2005 questionnaire falsely stated no back problems; medical records later showed chiropractic treatment beginning May 2005.
- Zumwalde sustained a work-related back injury Sept 29, 2005 and received workers’ compensation benefits around Oct 14, 2005.
- Ashbrock, the district’s chief, found violations of the Personnel Guide after reviewing the compensation claim and scheduled a predisciplinary conference for July 31, 2006.
- Zumwalde was suspended 30 days without pay; the suspension was later reduced to 20 days after appeal; Zumwalde then sued Ashbrock and the district for retaliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether RC 2744.09(B) removes immunity for fellow subdivision employees. | Language removes immunity for actions arising from employment. | Immunity remains with the fellow employee; only the subdivision loses immunity. | No; immunity is removed only as to the political subdivision. |
| Does 2744.09(B) extend immunity removal to actions by one subdivision employee against another for matters arising from employment. | Statutory text shows broader removal via 'civil actions' against subdivision. | Text favors immunity preservation for fellow employees. | No; 2744.09(B) does not remove fellow-employee immunity. |
| Should the court infer broader public-policy implications to deny immunity to an employee defendant? | Policy favors removing immunity to promote accountability. | Court must apply unambiguous statutory language over policy. | Public policy arguments do not control where text is unambiguous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Slingluff v. Weaver, 66 Ohio St. 621 (1902) (statutory-intent look to language first; use plain meaning)
- Provident Bank v. Wood, 65 N.E.2d 378 (Ohio 1973) (Ohio 1973) (look to clear, unequivocal statutory language)
- State v. Taniguchi, 656 N.E.2d 1286 (Ohio 1995) (do not delete words or insert unexpressed words in statute interpretation)