Case Title: State ex rel. Cobb v. Indus. Comm.

Citation: 2000-Ohio-273

Docket Number: 19981897

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2000-02-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Cobb v. Indus. Comm., 88 Ohio St.3d 54, 2000-Ohio-273.] 
 
 
 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. COBB, APPELLANT, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF OHIO, 
APPELLEE. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cobb v. Indus. Comm. (2000), 88 Ohio St.3d 54.] 
Workers’ compensation — Application for further temporary total disability 
compensation denied by Industrial Commission — Claimant’s illegal drug 
use in violation of employer’s written company policy constitutes a 
voluntary termination of employment rendering claimant ineligible to 
receive temporary total disability compensation — Court of appeals’ 
judgment denying writ of mandamus affirmed. 
(No. 98-1897 — Submitted January 26, 2000 — Decided February 23, 2000.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 97APD08-995. 
 
Appellant-claimant Walter L. Cobb, Jr.’s workers’ compensation claim was 
allowed as a result of an injury he sustained while in the course of and arising from 
his employment with Organic Waste Technologies (“OWT”).  Shortly after the 
injury, claimant began receiving temporary total disability compensation (“TTD”). 
 
In 1996, claimant took a company physical and tested positive for illegal 
drug use.  The written company drug policy in effect at that time read: 
 
 
2
 
“Drug Free Work Place 
 
“The Company is committed to maintaining a drug free work place.  Drug 
and alcohol substance abuse poses a serious threat to the safety and welfare of all 
employees of OWT, not just the user, and to the efficiency and productivity of 
which all our jobs depend.  The purpose of this policy is to ensure a safe work 
environment, as well as to ensure compliance with federal[,] state, and local laws. 
 
“Definitions 
 
“Drug—any drug or drug substance: 
 
“the use, possession, manufacture or sale of which is illegal * * *. 
 
“ * * * 
 
“Under the Influence of Drugs—having consumed any drug or drug 
substance as evidence[d] by * * * or the presence of any drug residue in a bodily 
fluid. 
 
“ * * * 
 
“It is a strict violation of Company policy and procedure for any employee 
to: 
 
“Report to work or attempt to work under the influence of alcohol, drugs or 
drug substances. 
 
“ * * * 
 
 
3
 
“Use, possess, trade, manufacture, attempt to sell, or sell or purchase drugs 
or drug substances on Company premises or job sites * * *. 
 
“Engage in any illegal on or off-the-job drug or alcohol-related activities 
which adversely affect job performance or which adversely affect the Company’s 
reputation. 
 
“VIOLATION OF ANY OF THE ABOVE RULES MAY RESULT IN 
DISCIPLINE, WHICH MAY INCLUDE DISCHARGE.” 
 
On September 27, 1996, claimant was fired for violating OWT’s drug 
policy.  Claimant’s later attempt at reinstating TTD was denied by appellee 
Industrial Commission of Ohio: 
 
“The case of [State ex rel.] Rockwell Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 
Ohio St.3d 44 [531 N.E.2d 678], establishes that an employee’s voluntary 
departure from employment precludes temporary total disability compensation.  In 
[State ex rel.] Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401 
[650 N.E.2d 469], the Supreme Court held that a termination of an employee is 
deemed to be voluntary if it [was] generated by an employee’s ‘ * * * violation of a 
written work rule or policy that (1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, (2) had 
been previously identified by the employer as a dischargeable offense, and (3) was 
known or should have been known to the employee.’ 
 
 
4
 
“At hearing, the employer filed a copy of its policy entitled ‘Drug Free 
Work Place.’  The relevant portions are set forth as follows: 
 
“ * * * 
 
“The claimant’s awareness of the employer’s drug policy is confirmed by his 
statement that he believed that he could be suspended if he tested positive for 
illegal drugs.  It was his impression that thirty days after his suspension, he would 
be given another drug test, the outcome of which would determine his ultimate 
employment status.  Although neither the employer’s current nor preceding policy 
statements refer to a re-testing after thirty days, it is clear from the claimant’s own 
admission that he was aware that his use of drugs could lead to termination.  In this 
respect, the three prongs of the test set forth in the Louisiana-Pacific Corp. case 
were fulfilled. 
 
“Based upon the foregoing, it is found that the claimant’s action of testing 
positive for drugs was a violation of a written company policy, and that his 
employment was terminated as a result of such testing, and that he was aware of 
the ramifications of his actions.  It, therefore, is found that the claimant’s actions 
constitute a voluntary termination of his employment, thereby rendering him 
ineligible to receive temporary total compensation as of 9-27-96, the date of his 
termination.” 
 
 
5
 
Claimant filed a complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for 
Franklin County, alleging that the commission abused its discretion in denying him 
further TTD.  The court of appeals disagreed and denied the writ. 
 
This cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right. 
__________________ 
 
Law Office of Thomas Tootle and Thomas Tootle, for appellant. 
 
Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and William J. McDonald, 
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  Voluntary abandonment of the former position of employment 
can preclude temporary total disability compensation.  State ex rel. Rockwell 
Internatl. v. Indus. Comm. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 44, 531 N.E.2d 678.  “Firing can 
constitute a voluntary abandonment of the former position of employment.  
Although not generally consented to, discharge, like incarceration, is often a 
consequence of behavior that the claimant willingly undertook, and may thus take 
on a voluntary character.”  State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp. (1993), 
68 Ohio St.3d 118, 121, 623 N.E.2d 1202, 1204. 
 
We elaborated on Watts in State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. 
Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 650 N.E.2d 469, 471-472, where we 
characterized as “voluntary” a firing “generated by the claimant’s violation of a 
 
 
6
written work rule or policy that (1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct, (2) had 
been previously identified by the employer as a dischargeable offense, and (3) was 
known or should have been known to the employee.” 
 
In this case, OWT’s drug-use policy clearly defined the prohibited conduct.  
It also identified violation of that conduct as a potentially dischargeable offense of 
which claimant was admittedly aware.  Claimant attempts to distinguish his 
situation from that in Louisiana-Pacific by asserting that here termination was 
optional rather than mandatory.  This is a distinction without consequence.  
Claimant’s inability to predict with certainty which sanction would be imposed is 
immaterial so long as he knew that termination was an  option.  Equally important, 
the employer’s choice of sanctions does not eliminate the element of voluntariness 
that claimant exercised when he chose to use illegal drugs. 
 
Claimant last argues that to uphold the commission is to encourage 
employers to fire employees as a means of avoiding the employers’ compensation 
obligations.  Louisiana-Pacific, however, responds to this concern by setting forth 
criteria that guard against firings without cause for the purpose of evading 
compensation responsibilities.  Claimant’s firing in this case was not without cause 
and could have been avoided by a decision to refrain from drug use. 
 
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
 
7
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.