employee filed claim in Ohio

2012Wilson v. Riverside Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 8 , 479 N.E.2d 275 (1985), syllabus. {¶16} R.C. 4123.90 provides in pertinent part: “No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim * * * 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 8 employer.” The workers’ compensation statute mandates that R.C. 4123.90 “be liberally construed in favor of employees.” R.C. 4123.95. {¶17} If the plaintiff establishes his or her pri

2012Wilson v. Riverside Hosp., 18 Ohio St.3d 8 , 479 N.E.2d 275 (1985), syllabus. {¶16} R.C. 4123.90 provides in pertinent part: “No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim * * * 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 8 employer.” The workers’ compensation statute mandates that R.C. 4123.90 “be liberally construed in favor of employees.” R.C. 4123.95. {¶17} If the plaintiff establishes his or her pri

2007No. 06CA00045-M, 2006-Ohio-6674 , at ¶ 7 , citing Kilbarger v. Anchor Hocking Glass Co. (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 332 , 337 , 697 N.E.2d 1080 . {¶ 8} R.C. 4123.90 is a part of the Ohio Workers' Compensation Act and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 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.

2007No. 06CA00045-M, 2006-Ohio-6674 , at ¶ 7 , citing Kilbarger v. Anchor Hocking Glass Co. (1997), 120 Ohio App.3d 332 , 337 , 697 N.E.2d 1080 . {¶ 8} R.C. 4123.90 is a part of the Ohio Workers' Compensation Act and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 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.

2007R.C. 4123.90 states: No employer shall discharge * * * any employee because the employee filed a claim or instituted, pursued or testified in any proceedings under the workers’ compensation act for an injury * * * which occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment with that employer. {¶ 36} R.C. 4123.90 applies only when an employee has been discharged as a result of “taking some action which would constitute the actual pursuit of his claim.” Bryant v. Dayton Casket Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 367, 371 , 23 O.O.3d 341 , 433 N.E.2d 142 .

2007R.C. 4123.90 states: No employer shall discharge * * * any employee because the employee filed a claim or instituted, pursued or testified in any proceedings under the workers’ compensation act for an injury * * * which occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment with that employer. {¶ 36} R.C. 4123.90 applies only when an employee has been discharged as a result of “taking some action which would constitute the actual pursuit of his claim.” Bryant v. Dayton Casket Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 367, 371 , 23 O.O.3d 341 , 433 N.E.2d 142 .

2018DISCUSSION A. First Assignment of Error {¶ 36} Under his first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting judgment in appellee's favor because it incorrectly determined the reasons given by appellee for appellant's termination were not pretextual pursuant to the test to support retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90. {¶ 37} R.C. 4123.90 states in pertinent part: No employer shall discharge * * * 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’ compensati

2018DISCUSSION A. First Assignment of Error {¶ 36} Under his first assignment of error, appellant contends the trial court erred in granting judgment in appellee's favor because it incorrectly determined the reasons given by appellee for appellant's termination were not pretextual pursuant to the test to support retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90. {¶ 37} R.C. 4123.90 states in pertinent part: No employer shall discharge * * * 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’ compensati

2018Id. {¶ 9} Appellant alleges Zulily terminated his employment in retaliation for filing a workers' compensation claim, in violation of R.C. 4123.90, which provides: 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 No. 16AP-628 4 injury or occupational disease which occurred in the course of and arising out of his employment with that employer. {¶ 10} To support a claim for retaliatory discharge, a plaintiff must show

2015Id. at 293 ; Civ.R. 56(E). {¶13} R.C. 4123.90 provides in relevant part that, “[n]o 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.” {¶14} “Courts analyze retaliatory-discharge claims under a burden-shifting framework, requiring the employee to initially set forth a prima facie case by showing the existe

2016Ctr., 150 Ohio App.3d 316 , 2002-Ohio-6446 , ¶ 37. {¶ 50} The essence of Thevenin's case is retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 which 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. {¶ 51} We have previously explained the burdens upon the parties and the process a court

2007Ctr. , 150 Ohio App.3d 316 , 2002-Ohio-6446 , at ¶ 35 , citing Bryant v. Dayton Casket Co. (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 367 , 371 , and Boyd v. Winton Hills Med.

2016Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359 , 1992-Ohio-95 , 604 N.E.2d 138 . {¶16} R.C. 4123.90 provides in pertinent part that [n]o employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim * * * 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. {¶17} To establish a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge, an employee must prove that the employee: (1) was injured on the job; (2) filed a claim for workers’

2016Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, 358-359 , 1992-Ohio-95 , 604 N.E.2d 138 . {¶16} R.C. 4123.90 provides in pertinent part that [n]o employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim * * * 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. {¶17} To establish a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge, an employee must prove that the employee: (1) was injured on the job; (2) filed a claim for workers’

2011Nonetheless, they are sustained in part because the trial court failed to consider Ms. Scalia’s retaliation claim in its broader context. 4 Absenteeism and Retaliation Per Se {¶6} Under R.C. 4123.90, it is unlawful for an employer to “discharge * * * 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.” Ms. Scalia argues that in Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School Dist., 100 Ohio St.3d 14

2006Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School Dist., 100 Ohio St.3d 141 , 150 , 2003-Ohio-5357 , ¶ 46.

2008Id. {¶ 16} R.C. 4123.90 provides, in pertinent 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." {¶ 17} To establish a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 , an employee must show that he or she (1) was injured on the job, (2) filed a workers' compensation claim, and (3)

2006Id. {¶ 17} R.C. 4123.90 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. {¶ 18} This statute "embodies a clear public policy that employers not retaliate against employees who exercise their statutory right to file a workers' compensation claim or pursue workers' compensatio

2006Metheney v. Sajar Plastics, Inc. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 428 , 590 N.E.2d 1311 ; Brown v. Lear Operations Corp. (Sept. 30, 1999), Sandusky App. No. S-99-013. {¶ 31} An employee sets forth a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge by demonstrating that he or she: (1) was injured on the job; (2) filed a workers' compensation claim; and (3) was discharged in contravention of R.C. 4123.90 .

2006Metheney v. Sajar Plastics, Inc. (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 428 , 590 N.E.2d 1311 ; Brown v. Lear Operations Corp. (Sept. 30, 1999), Sandusky App. No. S-99-013. {¶ 31} An employee sets forth a prima facie case for retaliatory discharge by demonstrating that he or she: (1) was injured on the job; (2) filed a workers' compensation claim; and (3) was discharged in contravention of R.C. 4123.90 .

2019Likewise, "[t]he trial court's denial of JNOV raises a question of law requiring de novo review as to whether the evidence, construed most strongly in favor of [the nonmoving party], is legally sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict." Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 147 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2016-Ohio-5083 , 64 N.E.3d 965 , ¶ 22, citing *983 Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P. , 119 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2008-Ohio-3833 , 893 N.E.2d 173 , ¶ 23. {¶8} R.C. 4123.90 provides in relevant part: No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee

2019Likewise, "[t]he trial court's denial of JNOV raises a question of law requiring de novo review as to whether the evidence, construed most strongly in favor of [the nonmoving party], is legally sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict." Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 147 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2016-Ohio-5083 , 64 N.E.3d 965 , ¶ 22, citing *983 Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P. , 119 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2008-Ohio-3833 , 893 N.E.2d 173 , ¶ 23. {¶8} R.C. 4123.90 provides in relevant part: No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee

2019Likewise, "[t]he trial court's denial of JNOV raises a question of law requiring de novo review as to whether the evidence, construed most strongly in favor of [the nonmoving party], is legally sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict." Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 147 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2016-Ohio-5083 , 64 N.E.3d 965 , ¶ 22, citing *983 Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P. , 119 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2008-Ohio-3833 , 893 N.E.2d 173 , ¶ 23. {¶8} R.C. 4123.90 provides in relevant part: No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee

2019Likewise, "[t]he trial court's denial of JNOV raises a question of law requiring de novo review as to whether the evidence, construed most strongly in favor of [the nonmoving party], is legally sufficient to sustain the jury's verdict." Link v. FirstEnergy Corp. , 147 Ohio St.3d 285 , 2016-Ohio-5083 , 64 N.E.3d 965 , ¶ 22, citing *983 Environmental Network Corp. v. Goodman Weiss Miller, L.L.P. , 119 Ohio St.3d 209 , 2008-Ohio-3833 , 893 N.E.2d 173 , ¶ 23. {¶8} R.C. 4123.90 provides in relevant part: No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee

2019Co. , 116 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2007-Ohio-6751 , 879 N.E.2d 201 , ¶ 26.

2019Co. , 116 Ohio St.3d 351 , 2007-Ohio-6751 , 879 N.E.2d 201 , ¶ 26.

2015Summit No. 26373, 2013-Ohio-1225, ¶ 13 , citing Scalia v. Aldi, Inc., 9th Dist.

2013Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447, 449 , 1996-Ohio-211 , 663 N.E.2d 639 . {¶13} With regard to the substantive law, we note that R.C. 4123.90 provides in relevant part as follows: 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 action shall be forever barred unless filed within one hu

2013No. 11CA0052-M, 2012-Ohio-2351, ¶ 19 . 5 ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR III THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING CASHLAND AND CANNON’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON MARISA’[S] CLAIM FOR WORKERS[’] COMPENSATION RETALIATION. {¶11} In Ms. Rivers’ third assignment of error, she argues that the trial court should not have awarded summary judgment to the defendants on her claim of retaliation under R.C. 4123.90. {¶12} R.C. 4123.90 provides, in pertinent part, No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any employee because the employee filed a claim or instituted, pursued o

2013Scalia, 2011-Ohio-6596, at ¶ 14 .

2013No. 06CA0018, 2006-Ohio-6332, ¶ 10 . {¶11} R.C. 4123.90 states, in relevant part, that: 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 and arising out of his employment with that employer.

2012(No. 2011-0621—Submitted January 17, 2012—Decided September 20, 2012.) CERTIFIED by the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County, No. 09 MA 189, 2011-Ohio-998 . __________________ CUPP, J. {¶ 1} No employer shall discharge an employee because the employee filed a claim or participated in a proceeding under the workers’ compensation act for an injury or occupational disease that occurred in the course of and arising out of employment.

2011Richard v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen’s Disability & Pension Fund (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 409, 411 , 632 N.E.2d 1292 . {¶ 13} R.C. 4123.90 provides: “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.” 6 January Term, 2011 {¶ 14} R.C. 4123.90 does not expressly prohibit retaliation against injured

2011Richard v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen’s Disability & Pension Fund (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 409, 411 , 632 N.E.2d 1292 . {¶ 13} R.C. 4123.90 provides: “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.” 6 January Term, 2011 {¶ 14} R.C. 4123.90 does not expressly prohibit retaliation against injured

2007Brewer v. Cleveland City Schools (1997), 122 Ohio App.3d 378 , 383 , citing Brown v. County Comm'rs (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 704 , 711 . {¶ 9} R.C. 4123.90 states, in relevant part: {¶ 10} "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." {¶ 11} This statute "embodies a clear public policy that employer