Search results
Mar 1, 2016 · With the 2005 enactment of R.C. 2745.01 and subsequent Ohio Supreme Court determination that it is constitutional, for the first time in many years the line has been clearly drawn in a pro-employer fashion.
- Facts
- Ohio Supreme Court’S Decision
- Takeaways
In November 2014, Malieka Evans sued Akron General Medical Center (AGMC) alleging she had been abused, assaulted, and battered while seeking treatment at AGMC’s emergency room. She claimed Dr. Amir Shahideh sexually assaulted her while she was sedated. Her complaint alleged the sexual abuse she experienced was the direct result of the medical cente...
On December 8, 2020, the supreme court issued a decision ultimately answering the question in favor of people filing negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims. To survive summary judgment in such cases, the individual must show an employee committed a wrong recognized as a tort (or wrongful injury) or a crime in the state of Ohio and nott...
Some employer advocacy groups have already criticized the Evans decision as imposing an “unworkable” burden on employers. It certainly eliminates some hurdles with which plaintiffs previously had to contend. Employers can now be sued in Ohio for negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claims, even without the employee(s) in question being named...
Jul 7, 2017 · In 1991 and in 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court nullified previous attempts by the Ohio Legislature to pass laws that limited the rights of employees seeking to file suit against their employers for injuries suffered due to intentional torts. Despite this, the legislature passed a similar law in 2004.
Dec 10, 2020 · Specifically, the Ohio Supreme Court held that “a plaintiff need not show that an employee has been adjudicated civilly liable or has been found guilty of a crime by a court in order for the plaintiff to maintain a negligent hiring, retention, or supervision claim against an employer.”
A negligent hiring, retention, or supervision action is a direct claim against an employer, based on an employee’s conduct that the law regards as wrongful that would not have occurred but for the employer’s failure to properly hire, supervise, or retain the employee. See Albain v.
- 130KB
- 9
2016. After the BWC denied further appeal, Osten filed a notice of appeal and a. complaint with the trial court on July 29, 2016, naming the BWC and PSA as defendants. Subsequently, PSA and Osten filed cross-motions for summary judgment in March 2017.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute expresses a clear public policy prohibiting retaliatory employment action against injured employees; (2) Ohio recognizes a common-law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when employees are retaliated against after they are injured on the job but before they file ...
