## Facts

- Thomas Brunecz, an employee of Houdaille Industries, Inc., alleged he was discharged for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits after a workplace injury.
- Brunecz filed suit in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90, seeking reinstatement, back pay, and reasonable attorney’s fees, and he demanded a jury trial.
- Brunecz later amended his complaint to drop reinstatement and seek only monetary relief (back pay and attorney’s fees).
- The matter proceeded through arbitration; the arbitrator awarded relief to Brunecz.
- Houdaille requested a trial de novo and moved to strike the jury demand on the ground that § 4123.90 does not provide a jury-trial right.
- The trial court struck the jury demand, held a bench trial, and entered judgment for Houdaille.

## Issues

1. Whether a retaliatory-discharge action under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90 is triable to a jury as a matter of right.
2. Whether amending a § 4123.90 complaint to seek only back pay and attorney’s fees (and not reinstatement) converts the action into a legal claim requiring a jury trial.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
- The court held there is no right to a jury trial in an action brought under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90.
- The court concluded the statutory cause of action is equitable in nature, even when the plaintiff elects to pursue only back pay and attorney’s fees.

## Legal Principles

- The right to a jury trial depends on whether the action is legal or equitable; statutory remedies centered on reinstatement and related make-whole relief are equitable.
- Under Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90, reinstatement is an equitable remedy, and back pay is treated as ancillary to that equitable relief rather than traditional legal damages.
- The character of a statutory action is determined by the statute’s rights and remedial scheme, not by a plaintiff’s election to omit certain remedies in pleadings.
- Legislative silence on jury trials in § 4123.90, contrasted with express jury-trial language in other workers’ compensation provisions, supports the conclusion that no jury-trial right was intended.
- Analogous treatment of reinstatement and back pay as equitable relief in Title VII practice supports classifying § 4123.90 claims as equitable.

## Conclusion

An Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90 retaliatory-discharge claim is an equitable statutory action that does not carry a jury-trial right, and a plaintiff cannot create a jury entitlement by amending the complaint to drop reinstatement and seek only back pay and attorney’s fees.


Brunecz v. Houdaille Indus., Inc., 468 N.E.2d 370 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)