2013•Unpublished venueRequires access

Employment Law

Robert J Girod

Open publisher page 0 citations

Abstract

Employment law involves not only statutes affecting fair labor and standards, family medical leave, employees with disabilities, occupational safety and health, and other employment laws, but other actions against employers and employees by the other. For example, in an employment injuries case Plaintiff Blankenship and other employees brought suit against their employer, Defendant Milacron, for intentionally failing to warn them of the harmful effects of their exposure to certain chemicals while on the job. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that the workers’ compensation system provided the only remedy for such work-related injuries. Blankenship appealed, arguing that the system did not bar suit for intentional conduct. The Ohio Supreme Court granted a hearing, finding that the workers’ compensation system does not bar direct employee suits against employers for intentional torts (Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., Ohio Sup. Ct., 69 Ohio St. 2d 608, 433 N.E.2d 572 (1982)).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Employment law involves not only statutes affecting fair labor and standards, family medical leave, employees with disabilities, occupational safety and health, and other employment laws, but other actions against employers and employees by the other. For example, in an employment injuries case Plaintiff Blankenship and other employees brought suit against their employer, Defendant Milacron, for intentionally failing to warn them of the harmful effects of their exposure to certain chemicals while on the job. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that the workers’ compensation system provided the only remedy for such work-related injuries. Blankenship appealed, arguing that the system did not bar suit for intentional conduct. The Ohio Supreme Court granted a hearing, finding that the workers’ compensation system does not bar direct employee suits against employers for intentional torts (Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., Ohio Sup. Ct., 69 Ohio St. 2d 608, 433 N.E.2d 572 (1982)).

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Employment law involves not only statutes affecting fair labor and standards, family medical leave, employees with disabilities, occupational safety and health, and other employment laws, but other actions against employers and employees by the other. For example, in an employment injuries case Plaintiff Blankenship and other employees brought suit against their employer, Defendant Milacron, for intentionally failing to warn them of the harmful effects of their exposure to certain chemicals while on the job. The trial court dismissed the suit on the basis that the workers’ compensation system provided the only remedy for such work-related injuries. Blankenship appealed, arguing that the system did not bar suit for intentional conduct. The Ohio Supreme Court granted a hearing, finding that the workers’ compensation system does not bar direct employee suits against employers for intentional torts (Blankenship v. Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc., Ohio Sup. Ct., 69 Ohio St. 2d 608, 433 N.E.2d 572 (1982)).

Key concepts: Law, Political science

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Employment Law — Research Paper | ScholarLens