Hurt on the Job and in a Union? Why Your Intentional-Tort Claim Stays in Court

Published December 1, 2022 · Ohio Supreme Court

Steven Sinley was a maintenance worker at a dairy-food plant in Stark County. In May 2019, he was called to fix a malfunctioning grinder. According to his lawsuit, the company had removed the electronic safety mechanism that would have cut the power when the machine was taken apart, and his supervisor switched the grinder on while Sinley was working on it, without warning. He lost four fingers on his dominant hand.

Sinley sued his employer. The employer's response was not to deny the facts, but to argue that he had no right to be in court at all: because he was a union member, it said, the union contract required his claim to go to private arbitration. On November 23, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio rejected that argument in Sinley v. Safety Controls Technology, Inc., 171 Ohio St.3d 332, 2022-Ohio-4153. For union workers who suffer serious injuries, it is an important decision.

Two tracks of recovery after a workplace injury

When you are hurt at work in Ohio, workers' compensation is usually the starting point. It pays medical bills and part of your lost wages regardless of fault. In exchange, the system generally bars you from suing your employer for negligence. Workers' comp does not pay for pain and suffering, and wage benefits replace only part of what you earned.

There are two important routes to a fuller recovery:

• A claim against someone other than your employer. If a defective machine, a negligent contractor, or another driver caused the injury, you can pursue that party in court while also receiving workers' compensation. I explained these claims in our post on workers' comp and third-party claims. Sinley, for example, also sued the company alleged to be his employer's safety consultant and the alleged manufacturer of the grinder.
• An employer intentional-tort claim. Ohio allows an injured worker to sue the employer directly when the employer acted with intent to injure.

The employer intentional-tort statute

R.C. 2745.01 sets a high bar. The worker must prove that the employer acted with the intent to injure or with the belief that injury was substantially certain to occur, and the statute defines "substantially certain" to mean deliberate intent to cause injury. Ordinary carelessness, even serious carelessness, is not enough.

There is one important presumption. Under R.C. 2745.01(C), the deliberate removal by an employer of an equipment safety guard creates a rebuttable presumption that the removal was committed with intent to injure, if an injury occurs as a direct result. Whether a particular device counts as an "equipment safety guard" is often the central fight in these cases, and I discussed that issue in our post on the safety-guard presumption.

These claims are difficult. They are also the only way a worker maimed by an employer's deliberate conduct can recover full damages from that employer, including pain, suffering and permanent loss.

The arbitration fight

Sinley's union contract contained a grievance and arbitration procedure. His employer asked the court to stay the lawsuit and send the intentional-tort claim to arbitration under that procedure. The trial court refused, and the Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed, because the contract never mentioned intentional torts or R.C. 2745.01.

Arbitration matters because it moves a case out of the courtroom. There is no jury, review is very limited, and the process is governed by an agreement the injured worker did not personally negotiate. In a case involving a permanent hand injury, the difference between a jury and an arbitrator can be enormous.

What the Supreme Court held

In a 4-3 decision written by Justice Jennifer Brunner, the Supreme Court affirmed. Its key holdings:

• No presumption of arbitrability. Arbitration is generally favored in ordinary contracts, but there is no presumption that a union contract's arbitration clause covers an individual employee's own statutory or legal claims.
• Waiver must be clear and unmistakable. A worker's right to take such a claim to court is waived only if the collective-bargaining agreement clearly and unmistakably says so.
• The claim must be identified. The contract does not have to list every conceivable claim, but to be clear and unmistakable, the arbitration provision must identify the claim either by statute or by specific cause of action.

Because Sinley's union contract said nothing about intentional torts, the union and the employer had not clearly agreed to take that claim out of the courts. His case stays in front of a judge and jury.

Justice Sharon Kennedy, joined by Justices Fischer and DeWine, dissented. The dissent read the contract's broad language covering "any employment-related controversy or dispute" as enough to require arbitration and criticized the majority for, in effect, requiring specific words.

What Sinley does not change

It is important not to overstate the decision. Sinley is about where the claim is heard, not whether it succeeds. The worker still has to meet the demanding standard of R.C. 2745.01, either by proving deliberate intent to injure or by establishing the safety-guard presumption and defeating the employer's rebuttal. And a union contract that specifically names intentional-tort claims or R.C. 2745.01 in its arbitration clause may lead to a different result.

What this means for you

If you are a union member who was seriously hurt at work:

1. File your workers' compensation claim promptly, and do not let anyone talk you out of it.
2. Do not assume the union contract controls your injury lawsuit. Under Sinley, the contract must clearly name the claim before it can force you into arbitration.
3. Ask what happened to the safety equipment. A guard, interlock or shutoff that was removed, bypassed or disabled can be the heart of an intentional-tort claim. Photographs, maintenance records and coworker statements need to be gathered before the machine is repaired or replaced.
4. Look beyond your employer. Equipment manufacturers, contractors and safety consultants may also be responsible.

Workplace injuries that cost someone a hand, an eye or the ability to work are among the most serious cases we see. Our guide chapter on what your case is worth explains the damages available in a civil claim, and the Ohio Personal Injury Guide covers the steps to take in the first days after any serious injury. We handle these claims as part of our personal injury practice.