Ruling underscores how high the bar is for employer liability when workplace violence strikes
An Ohio appeals court upheld the dismissal of an employer intentional tort claim arising from a workplace shooting that left seven employees shot.
In a decision handed down on March 31, 2026, the Fifth Appellate District of Ohio affirmed the dismissal of a claim filed by Nicholas Harris against his employer, Tri-Tech Laboratories, LLC, which does business as KDC/one. Harris had sued after a fellow employee, Bruce Foster, allegedly brought a firearm into their workplace in New Albany, Ohio, on February 4, 2025, and shot Harris along with six coworkers.
Harris filed his complaint in June 2025, claiming that Tri-Tech committed an employer intentional tort under Ohio Revised Code 2745.01. His complaint alleged that the company permitted Foster on the work premises with a firearm, permitted Foster on the premises in an intoxicated and unstable mental condition, failed to provide adequate security for its employees, maintained inadequate hiring, training, monitoring, and supervision practices, and permitted and promoted a hostile and unsafe work environment.
Tri-Tech moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Harris had not alleged that the company acted with deliberate intent to cause injury. The Licking County Court of Common Pleas agreed and dismissed Harris's claim in September 2025, finding that the complaint did not contain facts supporting the conclusion that the employer either specifically desired to injure Harris or knew that an injury was certain or substantially certain to occur.
On appeal, Harris argued that the trial court had ignored his factual allegations and turned what should have been a factual inquiry into a legal determination too early in the process. He contended that Tri-Tech's decision to allow an intoxicated and armed employee into the workplace amounted to an act that was substantially certain to cause injury.
The appellate court was not persuaded. Under Ohio law, employer intentional tort claims must meet a heightened pleading standard. That means a complaint cannot simply assert that an employer acted intentionally. It must lay out specific facts showing the employer either wanted to injure the employee or knew with substantial certainty that injury would result and went ahead anyway. The court found that Harris's complaint fell short of that threshold.
The court also addressed Harris's argument that he should have been given time to conduct discovery before the case was dismissed. It noted that Harris himself had joined in a motion to stay all discovery-related deadlines while the dismissal motion was pending, effectively undercutting his own position.
The ruling highlights a persistent tension in employment law. Even in cases involving serious workplace violence, Ohio courts require more than allegations of negligence or reckless disregard to hold an employer liable outside the workers' compensation system. For HR professionals, the case underscores both the legal protections afforded to employers under Ohio's intentional tort framework and the critical importance of proactive workplace violence prevention programs. The allegations in this case – that an employer allegedly permitted a dangerous employee onto the premises and failed to act – represent exactly the kind of scenario that well-designed threat assessment and intervention protocols are built to prevent.
The case is Harris v. Tri-Tech Laboratories, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-1152, Case No. 2025 CA 00079.
