A recent appellate court decision has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a former employee who accused his employer of deliberate wrongdoing after he and several coworkers were shot at work. The case centers on whether the employer can be held liable for an intentional tort under Ohio law, a question with implications for workplace safety and employer responsibility.
Nicholas Harris filed the complaint in the Licking County Court of Common Pleas on June 20, 2025, naming Tri-Tech Laboratories, LLC, doing business as KDC/one, as a defendant. The appeal was heard by the Fifth Appellate District Court of Appeals in Licking County, Ohio, with judgment entered on March 31, 2026.
According to court documents, Harris was employed by Tri-Tech when another employee shot him and six others at their workplace on February 4, 2025. In his complaint, Harris alleged that Tri-Tech committed an intentional tort under Ohio Revised Code section 2745.01. He claimed that Tri-Tech “negligently, intentionally, willfully, wantonly, recklessly, unlawfully…and without any regard for the safety of the Plaintiff” permitted Bruce Foster—the co-worker who carried out the shooting—onto company premises with a firearm while intoxicated and mentally unstable. Harris further alleged failures in security measures and supervision contributed to a hostile and unsafe work environment.
On July 17, 2025, the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation filed a cross-claim against all defendants seeking subrogation or reimbursement for medical and compensation benefits paid to Harris and potentially future costs. On August 13, 2025, Tri-Tech moved to dismiss both Harris’s claim and the cross-claim from OBWC. The company argued that Harris failed to allege facts showing it acted with deliberate intent to cause injury—a requirement under R.C. 2745.01 for establishing an employer intentional tort.
The trial court granted Tri-Tech’s motion to dismiss on September 26, 2025. In its order it stated there was no just cause for delay and deemed its decision final and appealable. Afterward, Harris sought clarification that only claims against Tri-Tech were dismissed; this was confirmed by the trial court on October 22, 2025.
Harris appealed the dismissal arguing that his complaint “adequately alleged facts sufficient to state a claim for employer intentional tort under R.C. 2745.01.” He asserted that allowing Foster onto company property despite knowing he had a firearm and was intoxicated constituted an act substantially certain to cause injury.
The appellate court reviewed whether Harris’s allegations met what it described as a “heightened pleading standard” required for such claims since amendments made to R.C. 2745.01 in 2005 limited recovery to cases where employers act with specific intent or knowledge that injury is substantially certain to occur. Citing precedent from Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., among others, the court emphasized unsupported conclusions are insufficient: “Unsupported conclusions that appellant committed an intentional tort are not taken as admitted by a motion to dismiss and are not sufficient to withstand such a motion.” It added: “We hold that a claim of intentional tort against an employer will be dismissed as failing to establish that the pleader is entitled to relief unless the complaint alleges facts showing that the employer: (1) specifically desired to injure the employee; or (2) knew that injury…was certain or substantially certain…and despite this knowledge still proceeded.”
In affirming dismissal of Harris’s claim against Tri-Tech Laboratories, both trial and appellate courts found no factual allegations supporting either specific desire or substantial certainty regarding harm: “the complaint does not make any allegations that Tri-Tech ‘either specifically desired to injure the Plaintiff or that it knew an injury…was certain or substantially certain.'” The appellate opinion also noted Harris himself acknowledged he would need “to speculate” about defendant’s intentions beyond what was already known.
Additionally, while Harris argued discovery should have been completed before ruling on dismissal motions so more facts could emerge about defendant’s conduct or intentions, records show he agreed jointly with other parties on September 18, 2025—after motions were filed—to stay all discovery deadlines pending resolution of those motions.
As relief in his original filing against Tri-Tech Laboratories under R.C. 2745.01 and related claims including negligence and violation of safety standards (OSHA), Harris sought damages related to injuries suffered during the incident along with other losses outlined in his complaint.
The appellate panel consisted of Judges Andrew J. King (presiding), William B. Hoffman, and Craig R. Baldwin who concurred in affirming dismissal; attorneys listed include Ryan H. Lauer representing Nicholas Harris and Rex A. Littrell, M. Salman Shah, Joseph J. Brennan representing Tri-Tech Laboratories LLC; case ID is Case No. 2025 CA 00079.
Source: 2026Ohio1152_Harris_v_Tri_Tech_Laboratories_LLC_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
