The ruling expands what it means for an employer to 'require' a task – and the safety duties that follow
Whirlpool was penalized after a maintenance worker lost his leg at a conveyor crossing that lacked the guard railings Ohio safety rules required.
The Supreme Court of Ohio on March 31, 2026, affirmed a workers' compensation penalty against the appliance manufacturer, finding that the company violated a specific safety requirement by failing to install standard guard railings at a conveyor-belt crossing inside one of its plants.
Keith Rice, a maintenance technician at Whirlpool, was tasked in November 2017 with diagnosing why several conveyor lines had stopped running. His troubleshooting took him to a point where he needed to cross over a running conveyor belt used to transport fully assembled dryer machines. The ceiling at that spot was too low for a bridge or walkway, so Whirlpool had welded step ladders to each side of the conveyor and installed metal slats on the belt for workers to step on. A conduit pipe near the ceiling served as a handhold. There were no railings on either side.
As Rice stepped across, his foot caught on an emergency-stop cord strung across the top of the far-side ladder. He tripped, tried to grab something to stop himself, found nothing, and fell roughly 28 inches to the ground. The injuries to his right knee eventually led to an above-knee amputation.
After the accident, Whirlpool relocated the emergency-stop cord and added rails to both sides of the ladders.
Ohio's Industrial Commission found that the company had violated Administrative Code 4123:1-5-05(C)(3), which requires employers to provide a fixed platform with standard guard railing and toeboards wherever employees are required to cross conveyors. The commission awarded Rice additional compensation at 50 percent of the maximum weekly rate – a penalty paid directly by the employer, separate from standard workers' compensation benefits and not covered by the employer's insurance premium.
Whirlpool challenged the ruling on several fronts. The company argued it never specifically directed Rice to cross at that location, only to find and fix the malfunction. The court was unconvinced. It found that where some evidence showed the task required crossing the conveyor at a designated crossing point, and Whirlpool had not presented a safer alternative, the crossing was effectively required. A Whirlpool manager had acknowledged during the hearing that maintenance employees would have to cross at that spot to fix the system.
The company also argued that the safety rule applied only to the space directly above the belt, meaning Rice was no longer technically crossing the conveyor when he reached the far-side ladder step. The court dismissed this reading as too narrow, noting that the ladders had been welded to the conveyor and built specifically to allow employees to cross.
On the question of whether compliance was even possible, Whirlpool contended that an elevated platform with 42-inch guardrails would have blocked dryer machines from moving down the belt. The court pointed to the railings the company itself installed after Rice's injury as evidence that compliant safety measures could have been put in place without disrupting operations.
The decision was not unanimous. Two justices agreed with the outcome but disagreed with the majority's reasoning on what counted as a platform. Chief Justice Kennedy dissented entirely, arguing that the physical layout of the facility made full compliance with the regulation impossible and that the majority was effectively punishing the company for improving safety conditions after the accident.
For HR professionals, the case carries a pointed reminder. The court's interpretation of what it means for an employee to be "required" to do something extends well beyond direct orders. If a task assignment makes a particular action reasonably necessary, and the employer offers no safer alternative, the employer owns the safety obligation that comes with it. The ruling also underscores a practical reality: post-accident safety upgrades, while the right thing to do, can become evidence that the fix was feasible all along.
The case is State ex rel. Whirlpool Corp. v. Rice, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-1094.
