The Ohio Supreme Court recently limited its 2003 decision in Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School District.  Coolidge had been broadly interpreted to prohibit employers from terminating employees who were unable to work due to a work-related injury while these employees were receiving workers' compensation benefits.  Prior to Coolidge, as long as an employer had a neutral policy limiting leaves of absence the employer could lawfully terminate an employee who was unable to return after exceeding the policy limit even if the absence was due to a work-related injury.

In Bickers v. Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, however, the Ohio Supreme Court clarified the Coolidge decision.  It held that at-will employees who are terminated from employment while receiving workers' compensation benefits may not pursue a claim for wrongful discharge based on the public policy underlying Ohio workers’ compensation law.  Instead, injured workers are limited to filing claims under the workers’ compensation statute which only prohibits retaliatory discharge.  A claim under the retaliatory discharge statute is now the exclusive remedy available to such employees.      

The plaintiff in Bickers sustained a work-related injury.  While she was still receiving temporary total disability benefits as a result of her work-related injury, her employer, Western and Southern Life Insurance Company, terminated her employment.  The plaintiff filed a lawsuit alleging that she had been wrongfully terminated in violation of Ohio’s public policy.  She relied on the Coolidge case decided by the Ohio Supreme Court in 2003.  She did not, however, file a retaliatory discharge claim under the workers' compensation statute.

This case gave the Ohio Supreme Court the opportunity to reexamine its Coolidge decision.  In examining that decision, the Court decided to limit Coolidge to the facts in that case which involved a contract teacher who was terminated without “good cause” while receiving workers' compensation benefits.  The Ohio Supreme Court held in Bickers that because the plaintiff in Bickers was not a teacher protected by a contract covered by an Ohio statute, Bickers was not entitled to the benefit of the holding in Coolidge.  She could not, therefore, assert a wrongful discharge claim in reliance on the Coolidge case.  The court specifically stated: “Coolidge does not create a cause of action for an at-will employee who is terminated for non retaliatory reasons while receiving workers' compensation.”

What this means for Ohio employers.

The Bickers decision gives employers back the right to enforce neutral leaves of absence policies.  The Bickers case limits Coolidge to the facts presented in that case which involved the termination of a teacher’s continuing contract under Ohio statutory law.  Now, employers may terminate an at-will employee for absenteeism if the employee's absence exceeds the employer’s neutral policies limiting leaves, even if the employee is receiving workers' compensation benefits.  Although employers must still tread carefully when evaluating the risks and benefits of terminating an employee who has filed a workers' compensation claim, Bickers is certainly a welcome decision.

            For more information on this or other employment law issues, please contact Patti Weisberg or one of our other Employment lawyers