In Bickers, the plaintiff was injured in the course of her employment and filed a workers’ compensation claim, which was allowed for multiple conditions.  Several years later, while the plaintiff was still receiving temporary total disability benefits related to her workers’ compensation claim, the defendant employer terminated her.  The plaintiff did not file a retaliatory discharge suit under R.C. § 4123.90, but instead filed suit alleging that she had been wrongfully terminated in violation of Ohio’s public policy, and relied on a previous Ohio Supreme Court case, Coolidge v. Riverdale Local School District, 100 Ohio St.3d 141 (2003).

The Court in Coolidge had held that the non-renewal of a teacher’s contract for absenteeism caused by a workplace injury for which the teacher was still receiving workers’ compensation benefits was contrary to Ohio’s public policy.  Since then, Coolidge has been interpreted broadly, such that it had become a bar to termination of any employee (whether or not a teacher) who is on leave and receiving workers’ compensation benefits.  Because of this broad interpretation, Ohio employers have had to exercise extreme caution when considering the employment status of employees receiving workers’ compensation benefits.

In Bickers, the Court examined the boundaries of the previous Coolidge decision, and ruled that:

“[W]e limit Coolidge to holding that terminating a teacher for absence due to a work-related injury while the teacher is receiving workers’ compensation benefits is a termination without ‘good just cause’ under R.C. § 3319.16.  Because Bickers is not a teacher protected by a contract covered by R.C. § 3319.16, Bickers is not entitled to the benefit of the holding in Coolidge and may not assert a wrongful discharge claim in reliance on Coolidge. . . .  Because Coolidge does not create a cause of action for an at-will employee who is terminated for nonretaliatory reasons while receiving workers’ compensation, the trial court properly dismissed Bickers’s claim.”

Thus, the Bickers Court held that the workers’ compensation system precludes a claim of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where an employee receiving workers’ compensation benefits is terminated for nonretaliatory reasons.  Employees who are terminated while receiving workers’ compensation benefits now have no common law or public policy cause of action against their employers.  From this point forward, R.C. § 4123.90 – which only prohibits retaliatory discharge – will be the exclusive remedy available to such employees, according to the Court.

This is a great result for Ohio employers, limiting Coolidge to the very narrow facts presented in that case.  The Bickers decision therefore removes a substantial barrier for employers who wish to terminate employees for absenteeism while those employees are on lengthy leaves of absence and receiving workers’ compensation benefits.  Employers should still ensure that they do not terminate employees in a retaliatory fashion, or they could still be liable to suit under R.C. § 4123.90, and should still evaluate the legal risks of any employee termination under all other applicable laws.  Nonetheless, the Bickers decision seems to give Ohio employers enhanced ability to enforce their absence policies, and to deal more effectively with lengthy or repeated employee absences.