Lead Opinion
{¶ 1} This certified-conflict and discretionary appeal presents the following two issues: (1) whether R.C. 2744.09(B), an exception to political-subdivision immunity from tort liability, applies to employer-intentional-tort claims by a political subdivision’s employee and (2) whether appellant, the city of North Ridgeville, was entitled to summary judgment on its former employee’s employer-intentional-tort claim, based on political-subdivision immunity. Consistent with Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth.,
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} In March 2000, North Ridgeville hired Vacha as a helper in its French Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant. As a helper, Vacha’s duties included basic plant maintenance and water testing. North Ridgeville later promoted Vacha to the position of unlicensed operator. An unlicensed operator has the same duties as a helper but is also responsible for meter readings.
{¶ 3} In 2004, North Ridgeville posted a job opening for another helper at the French Creek plant. The North Ridgeville mayor, G. David Gillock, asked Charles Ralston to apply for the helper position at the French Creek plant and asked the plant superintendent, Donald Daley, to grant Ralston an interview. Ralston, the father of two of Mayor Gillock’s grandchildren, was unemployed and in arrears with his child support. Mayor Gillock had known Ralston for about eight years and was aware that his daughter had twice called the police on
{¶ 4} Ralston applied for the helper position at the French Creek plant. North Ridgeville inquires about felonies on its employment application, but it does not conduct a criminal-background check before hiring an employee unless the position requires security or leadership. In his employment application, Ralston truthfully answered that he did not have a felony record. Between 1994 and 1999, however, Ralston was convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, assault, and disorderly conduct. Daley interviewed Ralston, but did not ask whether Ralston had a criminal record. Daley was pleased with Ralston’s interview, and North Ridgeville hired him for the helper position.
{¶ 5} Ralston worked at the French Creek plant from March 2004 to June 2, 2006. During Ralston’s employment at the plant, Vacha worked as an unlicensed operator. At some point, Vacha and Ralston had a verbal altercation after Vacha complained about Ralston’s wife driving onto the plant grounds. After that altercation, however, Vacha and Ralston worked together without incident (until the event underlying this case) and occasionally socialized outside of work. Vacha occasionally drove Ralston to work. From January 2006 to June 2, 2006, Vacha and Ralston worked the 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. shift together, generally alone and unsupervised.
{¶ 6} On June 2, 2006, Vacha picked Ralston up and drove him to the plant for the night shift. During their shift, Vacha permitted Ralston to drive her truck to purchase beer. ■ After returning to the plant, Ralston raped and assaulted Vacha. Vacha fled the plant on foot and reported the rape to the police. Ralston was convicted of rape and sentenced to prison.
{¶ 7} In June 2008, Vacha filed this action against Ralston and North Ridge-ville in the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. In her amended complaint, Vacha brought claims against Ralston for damages resulting from the assault and rape and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Vacha alleged the following four claims for relief against North Ridgeville: (1) negligent hiring and supervising of Ralston, (2) vicarious liability for Ralston’s actions, (3) reckless hiring and supervision of Ralston, and (4) intentional, willful, and wanton disregard of the safety of others in selecting, supervising, and controlling Ralston — an employer intentional tort.
{¶ 8} North Ridgeville moved for summary judgment, claiming immunity from tort liability under R.C. Chapters 2744 and 4123. The trial court granted summary judgment in North Ridgeville’s favor on Vacha’s vicarious-liability claim, but denied the city’s motion for summary judgment on Vacha’s intentional-tort claim and her claims for negligent and reckless hiring and supervision. North Ridgeville appealed pursuant to R.C. 2744.02(C), which provides that an
{¶ 9} The Ninth District Court of Appeals held that Ohio workers’ compensation law, R.C. Chapter 4123, precluded recovery on Vacha’s claims for negligent and reckless hiring and supervision, and it reversed the trial court’s denial of summary judgment on those claims. On the other hand, the court of appeals affirmed the denial of North Ridgeville’s motion for summary judgment on Vacha’s employer-intentional-tort claim. The court held that because an intentional tort may arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee, North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter of law on that claim. Id. at ¶ 22-23.
{¶ 10} The court of appeals certified that its decision conflicts with Zieber v. Heffelfinger, 5th Dist. Richland No. 08CA0042,
Analysis
{¶ 11} This appeal concerns only Vacha’s employer-intentional-tort claim, in which she alleged that North Ridgeville “acted intentionally with willful, wanton disregard for the safety of others, in selecting, supervising or otherwise controlling” Ralston. To recover for an employer intentional tort, an injured employee must prove that “the employer committed the tortious act with the intent to injure another or with the belief that the injury was substantially certain to occur.” R.C. 2745.01(A). As used in that statute, “ ‘substantially certain’ means that an employer acts with deliberate intent to cause an employee to suffer an injury, a disease, a condition, or death.” R.C. 2745.01(B).
{¶ 12} North Ridgeville argued that it was entitled to summary judgment on Vacha’s intentional-tort claim because it was immune from liability under R.C. Chapter 2744. The Ohio Political Subdivision Tort Liability Act, R.C. Chapter 2744, provides that political subdivisions are generally immune from liability for
{¶ 13} North Ridgeville’s entitlement to immunity on Vacha’s employer-intentional-tort claim depends upon the applicability of R.C. 2744.09(B). In its motion for summary judgment, North Ridgeville argued that intentional torts do not arise out of the employment relationship between a political subdivision and its employee and that political-subdivision immunity therefore applies. The court of appeals, however, held that Vacha’s intentional-tort claim “may constitute a claim within the scope of R.C. 2744.09(B)” and found that North Ridgeville did not establish that it was entitled to immunity as a matter of law.
{¶ 14} After the court of appeals issued its decision in this case, we addressed the applicability of R.C. 2744.09(B) to employer-intentional-tort claims by public employees in Sampson. Like this case, Sampson stemmed from a denial of a political subdivision’s motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 15} In Sampson, a plumber employed by the Cuyahoga Metropolitan Housing Authority (“CMHA”) sued CMHA for various intentional-tort and negligence claims. Sampson,
{¶ 17} Noting the differences between the policies underlying political-subdivision-tort immunity and workers’ compensation, we refused to incorporate the Blankenship rationale into the political-subdivision-immunity context. Sampson at ¶ 16. We held:
1. When an employee of a political subdivision brings a civil action against the political subdivision alleging an intentional tort, that civil action may qualify as a “matter that arises out of the employment relationship” within the meaning of R.C. 2744.09(B).
2. An employee’s action against his or her political-subdivision employer arises out of the employment relationship between the employee and the political subdivision within the meaning of R.C. 2744.09(B) if there is a causal connection or a causal relationship between the claims raised by the employee and the employment relationship.
Id. at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Sampson thus clarified that some, but not all, employer-intentional-tort claims against a political subdivision qualify as civil actions “relative to any matter that arises out of the employment relationship,” within the meaning of R.C. 2744.09(B).
{¶ 18} The court of appeals’ decision in this case predated Sampson, but it closely parallels the Sampson holding. The court of appeals noted that in Buck v. Reminderville, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25272,
{¶ 19} Sampson, which we reaffirm today, answers the eertified-conflict question in this case; “When an employee of a political subdivision brings a civil action against the political subdivision alleging an intentional tort, that civil action may qualify as a ‘matter that arises out of the employment relationship’ within the meaning of R.C. 2744.09(B).” Sampson,
{¶ 20} In Sampson, the court of appeals considered the evidence presented and held that Sampson’s claims clearly arose out of his employment relationship with CMHA, and we agreed. Id. at ¶ 18. We concluded that reasonable minds could find that Sampson’s claims arose out of his employment relationship with CMHA and that they were, therefore, excepted from immunity under R.C. 2744.09(B). Id. at ¶ 19, 22.
{¶ 21} To resolve the discretionary appeal here, Sampson requires consideration of whether there is a causal connection or causal relationship between Vacha’s intentional-tort claim and her employment relationship. If there is, then Vacha’s claim arises out of the employment relationship and the city may not claim political-subdivision immunity. If, on the other hand, there is no causal connection or causal relationship, then the city may be entitled to immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744.
{¶ 22} To determine whether there is a causal connection or a causal relationship between Vacha’s intentional-tort claim and her employment relationship with North Ridgeville, we must look to the factual basis for Vacha’s claim. North Ridgeville argues that Ralston’s criminal acts are unrelated to Vacha’s employ
{¶ 23} This case does not present the clear causal relationship present in Sampson,
{¶ 24} Sampson demands affirmance of the denial of North Ridgeville’s motion for summary judgment on Vacha’s employer-intentional-tort claim. The court of appeals appropriately rejected North Ridgeville’s argument that R.C. 2744.09(B) never applies to intentional-tort claims and correctly held that Vacha’s employer-intentional-tort claim may constitute a claim within the scope of R.C. 2744.09(B). Neither the trial court nor the court of appeals, however, considered whether the particular evidence in this case established a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there is a causal connection or a causal relationship between North Ridgeville’s selection, supervision, and control of Ralston, and Vacha’s employment relationship with the city. We decline to make that determination in the first instance.
{¶ 25} According to North Ridgeville, Vacha argues that merely alleging an intentional tort satisfies the causal-connection requirement. Regardless of whether that is an accurate characterization of Vacha’s argument, our affirmance
Conclusion
{¶ 26} In conclusion, we answer the certified-conflict question by reaffirming our holding in Sampson,
Judgment affirmed.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
{¶ 27} I reluctantly agree that it might be possible under Sampson v. Cuyahoga Metro. Hous. Auth.,
{¶ 28} In the city’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment, the city argued that R.C. 2745.01, the employer-intentional-tort statute, should be applied in determining whether Vacha had established an employer-intentional-tort claim. The court of appeals declined to apply R.C. 2745.01 because the city had not mentioned that statute in its motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 29} Fyffe espoused a common-law rule whereby an employee could recover in an employer-intentional-tort case if the employee demonstrated that the employer had knowledge of a dangerous working condition and yet required the employee to perform his or her work anyway, knowing with substantial certainty that the employee would be harmed. Fyffe at paragraphs one and two of the syllabus. Fyffe required a plaintiff to prove that the employer knew that injuries to employees were “ ‘certain or substantially certain to result.’ ” (Emphasis added.) Englund v. Wendy’s Internatl, Inc., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-95-229,
{¶ 30} In 2005, the General Assembly codified the requirements for employer-intentional-tort claims in R.C. 2745.01. By enacting R.C. 2745.01, the General Assembly intended to “ ‘significantly curtail an employee’s access to common-law damages for what we will call a “substantially certain” employer intentional tort.’ ” Houdek v. ThyssenKrupp Materials N.A., Inc.,
{¶ 31} To the extent that Fyffe espouses a “substantially certain” employer intentional tort, it is no longer good law. Applying the common-law definition of intentional tort espoused in Fyffe will create a substantial injustice to the city by
{¶ 32} David Gillock, the mayor of North Ridgeville, told Ralston about the entry-level job opening for a helper at the French Creek water-treatment plant. Gillock asked Don Daley, the superintendent of the plant, to interview Ralston for the position. At the time, the mayor was aware that his daughter had called the police on Ralston twice for domestic violence, but in his deposition, he testified that she had not pressed charges regarding either incident. The city’s employment application asked, “Since your 18th birthday, have you ever pled guilty to, or been found guilty of any offense other than minor traffic offenses.” Daley admitted that when he interviewed Ralston, he did not ask him whether he had a criminal record. The city did not conduct background checks for entry-level positions.
{¶ 33} Although it may be prudent for an employer to conduct a criminal-background check for all employment applicants, it is not required by law. Rozzi v. Star Personnel Servs., Inc., 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2006-07-162,
{¶ 34} When the city hired Charles Ralston, he had no felony convictions, but he did have several misdemeanor convictions for domestic violence and one for assault. While this evidence, combined with the mayor’s knowledge of Ralston’s history, might be sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ralston had a propensity for violence that the city knew or should have known about, possibly supporting a claim against the city for negligent, or maybe even reckless, hiring and/or supervision (claims that are barred by workers’ compensation law), I would hold that it is insufficient as a matter of law to support a claim that the city acted with deliberate intent to injure Vacha. Houdek,
{¶ 35} Accordingly, I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.