was outside the scope and course of employment at the time of the accident. Id. at 478-479, 592 N.W.2d 46. In discussing specific employer benefit, the court gave the example of a mechanic who attends an examination given by a manufacturer and receives a certificate which allows his employer to advertise that it employs “a factory-trained mechanic.” Id. at 478, 592 N.W.2d 46. In evaluating the compulsory nature of plaintiffs attendance, the court stated that: “[S]ubstantial evidence supported the magistrate’s conclusion that attendance was neither compulsory nor definitely urged or expected [but] merely encouraged, and, as such, was not an incident of employment.” Id. See also Oberhauser v. Mabe, 2009 WL 2232012, No. CA2008-11266 at *6 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. July 27, 2009) (unpublished) (<HOLDING>). In Allison v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 183
holding that where employee was not required to attend a seminar the school was not certain that it would adopt the prototypes she learned about at the seminar and employee was furthering a primarily personal interest in maintaining her teaching certificate employee was not in the course of her employment holding that a sexual assault on a female employee was of a personal nature and not directed against the employee as part of the employment relationship holding that the employee was acting within the course of her employment when she died while returning from the workrelated session because her death occurred on a public highway which was brought within the scope of her employment by her employers requirement that she attend training at the state police academy holding that an assault that occurred immediately after the employee was discharged was in the course of the employment holding the employee was clearly within the zone of her employment even though not at her work station because she was on the universitys premises the campus