Retaliatory Discharge Cases: Miscellaneous (Supreme Court)

Ohio Workers’ Compensation Decisions
(Supreme Court)

Retaliatory Discharge: Miscellaneous

Select the case name to read the decision on the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site. For other issues, see our topic index to Ohio workers’ compensation decisions.

Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins. Co. (12/20/07)

At-will employee who is fired while receiving temporary total does not have common-law cause of action for retaliatory discharge.

Vote: 5-2
Opinion by: Cupp

Lawrence v. Youngstown (9/20/12)

If employer does not notify employee of discharge within a “reasonable time”, the R.C. 4123.90 requirement that an employee must notify the employer of the claimed violation within 90 days does not start until the employee becomes aware (or should have become aware) of the discharge.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: Cupp

Onderko v. Sierra Lobo, Inc. (7/21/16)

Worker does not have to establish that they suffered a workplace injury to establish a prima facie case of R.C. 4123.90 retaliatory discharge; nor does failure to establish the right to participate for a workers’ compensation claim prevent a worker from pursuing an R.C. 4123.90 retaliatory discharge claim.

Vote: 6-1
Opinion by: O’Neill

Pytlinski v. Brocar Prod., Inc. (1/16/02)

Ohio public policy favors workplace safety. A cause of action for wrongful discharge based on violation of this public policy has a four year statute of limitations.

Vote: 4-1, 2 concur in judgment only
Opinion by: Justice Douglas

Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc. (6/9/11)

R.C. 4123.90 creates a clear public policy against retaliatory discharge which permits a tort claim for wrongful discharge when the discharge is based on a workplace injury but occurs before the workers’ compensation claim is filed; the remedy for such a wrongful discharge claim is limited to the remedies set forth in R.C. 4123.90.

Vote: 4-3
Opinion by: O’Connor