Facts
- Eight current or former employees of a chemical manufacturing facility alleged they were exposed at work to toxic chemical fumes and other harmful conditions.
- The employees claimed the exposure caused sickness, poisoning, chemical intoxication, pain, emotional distress, and permanent disability.
- They alleged the employer and certain supervisors knew of the hazardous conditions but failed to correct them, failed to warn employees, and failed to make legally required reports to governmental agencies.
- The employees further alleged defendants failed to warn that occupational diseases were being contracted and failed to provide medical examinations required by law.
- The complaint characterized the conduct and omissions as intentional, malicious, and willful and wanton, and sought compensatory and punitive damages.
Issues
- Whether Ohio’s workers’ compensation exclusivity provisions (Ohio Const. art. II, § 35; R.C. 4123.74; R.C. 4123.741) bar an employee’s common-law damages action against an employer for an alleged intentional tort committed in the course of employment.
- Whether the complaint alleging intentional wrongdoing stated a claim sufficient to survive dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Decision
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The court held that workers’ compensation exclusivity does not preclude an employee from pursuing common-law remedies against an employer for an intentional tort.
- Applying Ohio’s pleading standard, the court concluded the allegations were sufficient to withstand dismissal under Civ. R. 12(B)(1) and 12(B)(6).
- The U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the employer’s appeal for want of a substantial federal question, leaving the state court judgment in place.
Legal Principles
- Workers’ compensation exclusivity covers work-related injuries and occupational diseases that are accidental or otherwise part of the ordinary risks of employment addressed by the statutory compensation system.
- An employer’s intentional tort against an employee is not treated as a normal employment risk within the workers’ compensation bargain and therefore is outside the exclusivity bar.
- On a motion to dismiss, the court tests only the legal sufficiency of the complaint; dismissal is improper if the pleadings permit any set of facts under which the plaintiff could recover.
- Ohio’s constitutional and statutory workers’ compensation provisions are construed in light of their remedial purpose and are not read to confer immunity for deliberate harm.
Conclusion
The Ohio Supreme Court held that Ohio’s workers’compensation exclusivity provisions do not immunize employers from civil liability for intentional torts against employees, and that a complaint alleging intentional exposure to known workplace hazards may proceed in a common-law action for damages.