An injured employee does not have to go through arbitration before suing his employer, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

An injured employee does not have to go through arbitration before suing his employer, according to a Supreme Court ruling.

A maintenance worker severely injured at a Stark County dairy facility can sue his employer without first going through the grievance and arbitration process established by the company and its union, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 4-3 decision, the Supreme Court concluded that Steven Sinley’s lawsuit claiming an intentional injury by his employer was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement between Superior Dairy and a local Teamsters union. The contract called for alleged violations of employment-related laws or statutes to be resolved exclusively through grievance and arbitration procedures.

Sinley lost four fingers while trying to repair a malfunctioning grinder machine in 2019. He alleged Superior removed an electronic safety mechanism that would shut off the grinder when it was disassembled. As Sinley worked on the disassembled grinder, his supervisor “intentionally and without warning activated the machine,” the employee alleged.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Jennifer Brunner stated that any clause in a bargaining agreement requiring mandatory arbitration must contain “clear and unmistakable” language as to what disputes are covered by the agreement. She wrote that arbitration was not required in Sinley’s case because the agreement made no mention of intentional torts or R.C. 2745.01, the Ohio law permitting intentional tort lawsuits against employers.

The Court’s decision affirmed the ruling of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court and the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which agreed that Sinley could pursue his lawsuit against Superior and others.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Michael P. Donnelly and Melody Stewart joined Justice Brunner’s opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sharon L. Kennedy explained that the union contract made any violation of any employment-related law or statute except for workers’ compensation matters subject to binding arbitration.

Sinley’s claim is such an employment-related controversy, Justice Kennedy wrote, because R.C. 2745.01 provides that an employer intentional tort is one that is “committed by the employer during the course of employment.” The collective bargaining agreement therefore required Sinley to submit to the grievance and arbitration process, she concluded.

Justices Patrick F. Fischer and R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion.

By affirming the Eighth District’s decision, the Court returned the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

2020-1158. Sinley v. Safety Controls Technology, Inc., Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-4153.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.