A former employee is taking legal action against her previous employers, alleging wrongful termination due to disability discrimination and retaliation for pursuing workers’ compensation. On February 11, 2026, Kayla Ungerbuehler filed an appeal in the Hamilton County Court of Appeals against James and Kristen Kelly, challenging a trial court’s decision that dismissed her claims under Civ.R. 12(C).
Kayla Ungerbuehler was employed as a nanny by the Kellys from March 2022 until October 2023. In February 2023, she suffered injuries in a car accident while traveling to work, which significantly limited her physical abilities and required multiple surgeries. She informed the Kellys of her intention to file a workers’ compensation claim under R.C. 4123.90 within ninety days of her injury. However, on October 15, 2023, after informing them about needing another surgery and requesting not to travel with them out of state due to her condition, the Kellys reduced her working hours and subsequently terminated her employment two days later.
Ungerbuehler filed a lawsuit against the Kellys for wrongful discharge based on Ohio’s public policy against disability discrimination and workers’ compensation retaliation under R.C. 4123.90. She claimed that they terminated her employment because she engaged in protected activities by notifying them of her intent to pursue a workers’ compensation claim. Furthermore, she alleged that the Kellys threatened to challenge her claim in an attempt to dissuade her from exercising her rights.
In response, the Kellys admitted receiving notice of Ungerbuehler’s injuries but denied that they were related to work or required surgeries. They also accused Ungerbuehler of attending a Cincinnati Bengals game instead of fulfilling job duties and claimed she crashed their vehicle post-game without reporting it immediately.
The trial court initially dismissed Ungerbuehler’s complaint with prejudice, citing that she failed to establish that the Kellys met the definition of an “employer” under Ohio law or that she was eligible for workers’ compensation since the injury occurred while commuting—a scenario typically excluded from coverage.
However, upon appeal, Judge Bock reversed this decision citing several errors in dismissing Ungerbuehler’s claims. The appellate court found that Ohio law does recognize public policy exceptions to at-will employment when an employee is discharged in violation of statutory rights such as those against disability discrimination and retaliatory discharge for pursuing workers’ compensation benefits.
The appellate court ruled that R.C. Ch. 4112 reflects clear public policy prohibiting discrimination based on disability regardless of employer size or nature of employment—thereby allowing Greeley claims even if an employer has fewer than four employees or if an employee works in domestic service like nannying.
Additionally, following precedent set by cases like Onderko v. Sierra Lobo Inc., it was determined that proof of workplace injury is not necessary for establishing a retaliation claim; rather focus should be on whether punitive action was taken against an employee for pursuing their rights under Workers’ Compensation Act.
Ultimately seeking reversal and remandment for further proceedings at trial level without penalties imposed upon either party yet costs taxed per App.R24 provisions—the case now returns back into hands where original dismissal occurred hoping fair resolution can finally emerge amidst complex legal landscape surrounding issues raised herein today!
Representing Kayla Ungerbuehler are attorneys Willis Spanger Starling and Jason E Starling while Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP with George B Musekamp alongside Trevor M Nichols defend James & Kristen Kelly before Judges Nestor Moore concurred alongside Presiding Judge Bock presiding over Case ID C-250201 throughout these ongoing proceedings unfolding within Ohio First District Court Appeals jurisdiction located Hamilton County regionally situated accordingly…
Source: 2026Ohio436_Ungerbuehler_v_Kelly_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf