 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Reichenbach v. TTW-NIFCO9/21/2000
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Plaintiff-appellant, Carl Reichenbach, appeals from the November 23, 1999 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas granting summary judgment in favor of defendant-appellee, ITW-NIFCO, Inc. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the trial court.
On January 16, 1997, appellant, an employee of appellee, injured his neck, back, and knees when he fell at work. Appellant returned to work on January 28, 1997, under restrictions from his physician that he was not to bend, lift, twist, pull or push for any length of time, and that he was not to lift objects weighing in excess of twenty pounds.
On February 10, 1997, appellant's attorney sent to appellee a copy of a "First Report of Injury." On February 12, 1997, appellant's attorney filed a First Report of Injury with the Bureau of Workers' Compensation, and the matter was assigned a claim number.
On February 20, 1997, appellant was approached by his supervisor, Brian DeBruin. DeBruin spoke to appellant about bad parts coming from appellant's shift. DeBruin asked appellant to sign a written warning and appellant refused, stating that his attorney had advised him not to sign anything until the attorney had an opportunity to review any documents. Appellant tape-recorded the conversation on a micro cassette recorder. Appellee claims that appellant raised his voice and was confrontational during this conversation. Appellant denies that he behaved in an inappropriate manner.
Previously, in November 1996, appellant had received a written reprimand for engaging in an altercation with a co-worker and for attaching a flag patch to his uniform. Appellant was warned at that time that further displays of improper conduct and insubordination could result in termination.
After the incident with DeBruin, appellant returned to work on February 24, 1997. He was not permitted to clock in and, instead, was terminated.
On August 13, 1997, appellant filed his complaint alleging that he was wrongfully terminated from his employment with appellee in retaliation for filing a claim for benefits under the workers' compensation act. On May 20, 1998, appellee filed a motion for summary judgment. By judgment entered November 23, 1999, the trial court granted appellee's motion. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and sets forth the following assignment of error for our review:
The trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Civ.R. 56 as there was a genuine issue as to a material fact and therefore summary judgment was not appropriate.
R.C. 4123.90 prohibits retaliation by an employer against an employee for pursuing a workers' compensation claim. The statute provides in relevant part:
No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim or instituted, pursued or testified in any proceedings under the workers' compensation act for an injury or occupational disease which occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment with that employer. *
The scope of the cause of action created by the statute is very limited, and the burden of proof is upon the employee to specifically show that the termination was in direct response to the filing of a claim. Metheney v. Sajar Plastics, Inc. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 428, 432. When an employer, as the moving party, comes forward with proof of a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for discharging an employee, it is incumbent upon the other side to come forward with evidence that the reason articulated by the employer
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|