Kerans v. Porter Paint Co.

Supreme Court of Ohio · Torts

Tortssexual harassmentemployer liabilityworkers' compensationrespondeat superiornegligenceR.C. 4123.74R.C. 4123.01(C)

Facts

Kerans alleged that Levine, a Porter Paint employee, sexually harassed and molested her at work, causing purely psychological injury. The record contained evidence that Levine may have had supervisory authority over Kerans, including control over her hours and departure time, and that he may have used that authority to pressure her to endure his conduct. There was also evidence that Porter Paint management had previously received multiple reports that Levine had sexually harassed or molested other female employees but trivialized the complaints and did not meaningfully discipline, transfer, demote, or fire him. Kerans asserted several claims against Porter Paint, including theories based on assault and battery, failure to provide a safe work environment, and a first count that alleged Porter Paint intentionally, willfully, wantonly, and/or negligently condoned Levine's conduct.

Issue

Whether Kerans's workplace sexual-harassment claims against Porter Paint were barred by workers' compensation exclusivity, and whether summary judgment for Porter Paint was proper on theories of respondeat superior, negligent failure to protect employees from a known harasser, and the separately pleaded first claim for relief. Also at issue was whether Van Fossen's employer-intentional-tort standard governed the first claim.

Rule

Claims arising from workplace sexual harassment that involve purely psychological injury are not barred by R.C. 4123.74 on the assumption that workers' compensation provides the exclusive remedy. Summary judgment is improper against an employer when the record creates a genuine issue of material fact either that the harasser acted within the scope of employment by using authority or apparent authority conferred by the employer, or that the employer knew or should have known of the employee's past sexually harassing behavior and failed to take corrective action to provide a safe work environment. Van Fossen applies only where the employer's conduct is solely intentional and does not govern negligence-based sexual-harassment claims alleging purely emotional injury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Patel worked for Lakeview Office Supply, a fictional company in Columbus, Ohio. She alleges a coworker repeatedly made unwanted sexual advances at work, causing severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress symptoms but no physical injury.

If Lakeview argues that Ohio's workers' compensation statute provides Nina's exclusive remedy and bars her tort suit, what is the strongest response?

Explanation. The majority rejected the argument that workers' compensation exclusivity bars workplace sexual-harassment claims alleging nonphysical injury with purely psychological consequences. It emphasized that the court was not prepared to assume such harm fits the statutory definition of compensable injury, especially given the statutory exclusion of psychiatric conditions except where arising from physical injury or occupational disease. It also reasoned that workers' compensation focuses on economic loss, while sexual harassment often inflicts dignitary and emotional harms. (Derived from Kerans v. Porter Paint Co. (n.d.).)