STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., Et Al.STOLZ v. J & B STEEL ERECTORS, INC., Et Al.
Lead Opinion
{¶ 2} This is the second time in the same federal lawsuit that we have been called upon to answer a question about the contractor-self-insurance program. See Stolz v. J & B Steel Erectors, Inc. ,
{¶ 3} Prior to the start of construction, Messer received permission from the Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation to act as the self-insuring employer on the project under
{¶ 4} After he was injured, Stolz sued Messer and several of the subcontractors for negligence. Messer and three of the enrolled subcontractors moved for summary judgment on the grounds that they are immune from liability under
{¶ 5} The district court granted summary judgment to Messer, as the general contractor, but refused to extend immunity to the subcontractors. Following summary judgment, we accepted our first certified question of state law from the federal court. That question asked whether
{¶ 6} Back before the district court, Stolz amended his complaint to allege that
"[w]hether Ohio [R.C.] 4123.35(O) is unconstitutional as applied to the tort claims of an enrolled subcontractor's employee who is injured while working on a self-insured construction project and whose injury is compensable under Ohio's workers' compensation laws."
(Brackets sic.)
II. Ohio's Workers' Compensation System and
{¶ 7} The Ohio Constitution authorizes the legislature to establish a state fund for the purpose of "providing compensation to workmen and their dependents, for
{¶ 8} The legislature established the Ohio workers' compensation system under this authority. See R.C. Chapter 4123. Most employers participate in the system by paying premiums into a state insurance fund that administers and pays out claims.
{¶ 9}
III. Stolz's Constitutional Claims
{¶ 10} In his amended complaint, Stolz alleged that
{¶ 11} Stolz alleged violations of seven provisions of the Ohio Constitution. But in his briefing before this court, Stolz argues only that
A. Due Course of Law
{¶ 12} Stolz first argues that
{¶ 13} Stolz primarily argues that
{¶ 14} In a substantive-due-process challenge, "[t]he first (and often last) issue * * * is the proper characterization of the individual's asserted right." Blau v. Fort Thomas Pub. School Dist. ,
{¶ 15} Stolz contends that
{¶ 16} In Arrington , we held that the constitutional right to a jury trial does not extend to a worker seeking to participate in the workers' compensation fund. Arrington at ¶ 26-27. We explained that "the statutory workers' compensation scheme was intended as a replacement for the void of common-law remedies for workers injured on the job." Id. at ¶ 24. Because the act " 'abolishes all right of recovery in ordinary cases,' " it " 'leaves nothing to be tried by jury.' " Id. , quoting Mountain Timber Co. v. Washington ,
{¶ 17} We also reject Stolz's argument that
{¶ 18} In Stetter , we considered an intentional-tort statute that limited an employee's ability to recover in tort from his employer to situations in which the employee could show that the employer acted with a deliberate intent to injure; claimants who could not meet this standard could receive compensation only through the workers' compensation system.
{¶ 19} Thus, we reject Stolz's claim that
{¶ 20} Ohio's workers' compensation system is the "result of a unique compromise between employees and employers, in which employees give up their common-law remedy and accept possibly lower monetary recovery, but with greater assurance that they will receive reasonable compensation for their injury." Stetter at ¶ 54. In recognition of this compromise, we have upheld various aspects of the workers' compensation system in the face of due-process challenges. In Kaiser v. Strall ,
{¶ 21} Similarly, in Stetter , we looked to the underlying purposes of the workers' compensation system in upholding a statutory restriction on an employee's ability to sue his employer for an intentional tort.
{¶ 22}
{¶ 23} Stolz also presents what he characterizes as a procedural-due-process claim. He says that employees "were not reasonably put on notice by the language of the statute that they would be deprived of their rights to a jury trial and remedy as to non-employer, third-party contractors." In essence, his argument is that his procedural-due-process rights were violated because he could not have anticipated our decision in Stolz I interpreting
{¶ 24} A procedural-due-process claim challenges the adequacy of the procedures employed when the government deprives a person of life, liberty, or property. Ferguson v. State ,
B. Equal Protection
{¶ 25} Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution provides: "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit * * *." Stolz claims that his equal-protection rights are infringed upon because he is treated differently than a worker who is "on a traditional, state-funded project that does not take advantage of
{¶ 26} Our analysis of Stolz's substantive-due-process claim gives away the ending as to his equal-protection claim. When-as here-a statute does not infringe upon a fundamental right or involve a suspect classification, it will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Ferguson at ¶ 31. As we explained in the due-process section of our analysis, the classification rationally advances a legitimate government interest by extending the limitations on damages provided for in the workers' compensation system to enrolled subcontractors in large construction projects. In addition, it advances the government's interest in allowing injured workers a certain, and prompt, mechanism for the payment of benefits. Because
{¶ 27} The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio asked a question of state law as to whether
So answered.
Kennedy, French, and DeGenaro, JJ., concur.
Fischer, J., concurs, with an opinion.
O'Connor, C.J., and O'Donnell, J., concur in judgment only.
Concurrence Opinion
{¶ 28} I fully and respectfully concur in the majority opinion and its resolution of the arguments presented by the parties. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the unique language and historical background of this state's Equal Protection Clause, Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution, should be carefully analyzed. In a future case, this court should reexamine our precedent holding that the Ohio Equal Protection Clause is actually the "functional equivalent" of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
{¶ 29} Because the parties in this case did not challenge this court's traditional understanding of the two clauses as functionally equivalent, the majority properly follows that precedent. Today's decision should not, however, be taken to mean that the precedent is unchallengeable.
I. Introduction
{¶ 30} This court has previously held that the state courts may recognize protections under the Ohio Constitution that are greater than those provided by the United States Constitution. Arnold v. Cleveland ,
{¶ 31} The Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution was adopted as part of the 1851 Ohio Constitution, whereas the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was not ratified until 1868. Therefore, there can be no legitimate argument that the Ohio Equal Protection Clause was the "functional equivalent" of the federal Equal Protection Clause for the first 17 years that the Ohio clause existed-there was no federal clause to which it could be equivalent, functional or otherwise.
A. The Ohio Equal Protection Clause
{¶ 32} The Ohio Equal Protection Clause is similar in some ways to the Equal Protection Clauses found in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights and the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution. The Ohio Equal Protection Clause provides, "All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same * * *." Article I, Section 2, Ohio Constitution. Both the 1776 Virginia and 1776 Pennsylvania clauses provided that "government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community." Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776,
{¶ 33}
{¶ 34} Moreover, this court did not cite the Ohio Equal Protection Clause in any published decision until 1895, well after the passage of the federal Equal Protection Clause. See State ex rel. Schwartz v. Ferris ,
B. The United States Equal Protection Clause
{¶ 35} The federal Equal Protection Clause provides that "[n]o state shall * * * deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment, including its Equal Protection Clause, was drafted primarily by Congressman John Bingham of Ohio. Richard L. Aynes, The Continuing Importance of Congressman John A. Bingham and the Fourteenth Amendment ,
{¶ 36} The Ohio and federal Equal Protection Clauses were drafted relatively closely to each other in time, so it is reasonable to assume that Congressman Bingham was familiar with the language in the Ohio clause. Yet each clause's language is significantly different from the language of the other. Therefore, either a plain-meaning or an intentionalist interpretation of the Ohio Equal Protection Clause could well lead to the determination that the Ohio clause is too distinct from the federal clause for them to be considered "functional equivalents." See Paul Brest, The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding ,
C. Ohio Supreme Court Cases Analyzing the Ohio Equal Protection Clause
{¶ 37} Traditionally, this court has treated the Ohio Equal Protection Clause and the federal Equal Protection Clause as "functionally equivalent." See Schwartz ,
{¶ 38} Nonetheless, that precedent has been questioned in at least two recent decisions. See State v. Noling ,
{¶ 39} Thus, this court's jurisprudence on the Ohio Equal Protection Clause has not been uniform. Given the recent divergence from our traditional understanding of the clause, it is not unreasonable to suggest that this court should, with the benefit of full briefing, thoroughly reexamine the Ohio and federal Equal Protection Clauses and determine whether they are indeed functional equivalents.
III. Testing Functional Equivalence
{¶ 40} One major problem with the functional-equivalence approach is that United States Supreme Court precedent regarding some amendments to the United States Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment and its Equal Protection Clause, is far from static. In the 1960s, the court applied a rational-basis test unless the statute at issue "classified on the basis of race" or "provided for unequal distribution of fundamental rights." William D. Araiza, The Section 5 Power and the Rational Basis Standard of Equal Protection ,
{¶ 41} As noted above, this court first recognized the Ohio Equal Protection Clause as the functional equivalent of the federal Equal Protection Clause in 1895. See Schwartz ,
{¶ 42} By treating the two clauses as functionally equivalent, this court delegates its final authority to interpret the Ohio clause to the United States Supreme Court, which that court exercises whenever it substantially alters its interpretation of the federal clause. This "upward delegation" of the duty to interpret the Ohio Constitution is improper under our federal system and unconstitutional under the Ohio Constitution. See Article IV, Section 1, Ohio Constitution. Thus, a strong argument can be made that this court cannot blindly accept the current, or any new, federal interpretation but instead must independently determine when interpreting the Ohio Equal Protection Clause whether to follow the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of the federal Equal Protection Clause.
{¶ 43} Because this court's recent caselaw on the Ohio Equal Protection Clause is not uniform, because the Ohio clause has language and a historical background that are substantially different from those of the federal Equal Protection Clause, and because the United States Supreme Court's jurisprudence on the federal clause has repeatedly shifted since this court first made the "functional-equivalence" determination, a future challenge to this court's equal-protection functional-equivalence precedent should be carefully analyzed and resolved with thorough reasoning.
IV. Conclusion
{¶ 44} Again, the parties in this case did not challenge this court's traditional understanding that the Ohio Equal Protection Clause is the functional equivalent of the federal Equal Protection Clause. As is proper, the majority opinion does not conduct an analysis of unraised arguments. I take no position on whether the arguments proposed above, or any other arguments challenging this court's functional-equivalence holdings, would lead me to conclude that the Ohio Equal Protection Clause is anything other than the functional equivalent of the federal Equal Protection Clause as currently interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Nonetheless, if such arguments were properly briefed and submitted to this court, I believe that the court would need to conduct "an independent analysis of the equal-protection guarantee in Article I, Section 2 of the Ohio Constitution premised on its language, history or early understandings,"