Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 4123.90 (2026)

Retaliation for filing a claim, discrimination against out-of-country dependents prohibited

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

November 3, 1989

Latest Legislation:

House Bill 222 - 118th General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

The bureau of workers' compensation, industrial commission, or any other body constituted by the statutes of this state, or any court of this state, in awarding compensation to the dependents of employees, or others killed in Ohio, shall not make any discrimination against the widows, children, or other dependents who reside in a foreign country. The bureau, commission, or any other board or court, in determining the amount of compensation to be paid to the dependents of killed employees, shall pay to the alien dependents residing in foreign countries the same benefits as to those dependents residing in this state.

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. Any such employee may file an action in the common pleas court of the county of such employment in which the relief which may be granted shall be limited to reinstatement with back pay, if the action is based upon discharge, or an award for wages lost if based upon demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken, offset by earnings subsequent to discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken, and payments received pursuant to section 4123.56 and Chapter 4141. of the Revised Code plus reasonable attorney fees. The action shall be forever barred unless filed within one hundred eighty days immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken, and no action may be instituted or maintained unless the employer has received written notice of a claimed violation of this paragraph within the ninety days immediately following the discharge, demotion, reassignment, or punitive action taken.

Last updated September 22, 2023 at 12:12 PM

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 182 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 2011 Ohio 2723 (Ohio 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Sutton v. Tomco Machining, Inc., 2011 Ohio 2723 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 90× “90 expresses a clear public policy prohibiting retaliatory employment action against injured employees — Ohio recognizes a common-law tort claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy when an injured employee suffers retaliatory employment action after injury on…”

Onderko v. Sierra Lobo, Inc. (Slip Opinion), 2016 Ohio 5027 (Ohio 2016). · cites it 71× “] Workers’ compensation―R.C. 4123.90―Action for retaliatory discharge―Prima facie case for retaliatory discharge does not include proof that plaintiff suffered workplace injury.”

White v. Mount Carmel Med. Ctr., 780 N.E.2d 1054 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 31× “{¶ 18} On February 23, 2000, appellant filed an action against appellee, alleging (1) wrongful termination in violation of R.C. 4123.90 (the Ohio workers’ compensation anti-retaliation statute); and (2) an employer’s intentional tort claim for appellee’s intentional, malicious,…”

Bickers v. W. & S. Life Ins., 2007 Ohio 6751 (Ohio 2007). · cites it 30× “] Employment – Wrongful discharge – No common-law action exists for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy for employee who is terminated while receiving workers’ compensation – Cause of action for retaliatory discharge under R.C. 4123.90 is exclusive remedy for…”

Boyd v. Winton Hills Med. & Health Ctr., Inc., 727 N.E.2d 137 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 26× “She alleged that Winton Hills had violated R.C. 4123.90, which prohibits employers from taking punitive action against employees who file workers’ compensation claims.”

Pinkerton v. Thompson, 881 N.E.2d 880 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 21× “The complaint consisted of the following three counts: (1) employer intentional tort (“Claim I”), based on Pinkerton’s June 4, 1999 injury, (2) violation of the workers’ compensation statute R.C. 4123.90 (“Claim II”), based on Pinkerton’s April 2001 shoulder injury, and (3)…”

Hall v. Itt Auto., 362 F. Supp. 2d 952 (N.D. Ohio 2005). · cites it 32× “Ohio Rev.Code § 4123.90. Section 4123.90 does not, however, preclude employers from terminating employees for any lawful reason, including inability to do their jobs or absenteeism due to their workplace injury.”

Sidenstricker v. Miller Pavement Maint., Inc., 815 N.E.2d 736 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 19× “, on (1) plaintiffs claim of retaliatory discharge in violation of R.C. 4123.90, (2) plaintiffs claim of wrongful discharge in violation of the public policy embodied in R.”

Collins v. United States Playing Card Co., 466 F. Supp. 2d 954 (S.D. Ohio 2006). · cites it 34× “Workers’ Compensation Retaliation Collins claims that the Company terminated him to get back at his wife for filing and pursuing a claim for workers’ compensation, and that this violates Ohio Rev.Code § 4123.90 and/or the public policy of Ohio.”

Meyer v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 2009 Ohio 2463 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 11× “On September 10, 2004, the trial court denied UPS’s motion to dismiss the R.C. 4123.90 claim, but it granted the motion as to the public-policy retaliatory-discharge claim.”

Kilbarger v. Anchor Hocking Glass Co., 697 N.E.2d 1080 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 17× “Appellant Mark Kilbarger appeals the decision of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas that entered judgment in favor of Anchor Hocking Glass Company (“Anchor Hocking”) on his claim for retaliatory discharge pursuant to R.C. 4123.90. Appellant began working for appellee…”

Balyint v. Arkansas Best Freight Sys., Inc., 480 N.E.2d 417 (Ohio 1985). · cites it 18× “1 Appellants argue further that appellees’ action is barred for failure to bring the action within the one hundred eighty-day period set forth in R.C. 4123.90. That section provides in part: “No employer shall discharge, demote, reassign, or take any punitive action against any…”

Show all 182 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.