of the fact-based elements of the claim, i.e., the causation and overriding-justification elements. Judgment affirmed and cause remanded. Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, and McGee Brown, JJ., concur. O’Donnell, Lanzinger, and Cupp, JJ., dissent. 1 . For ease of discussion, the phrase “the employee files a workers’ compensation claim or institutes, pursues, or testifies in any workers’ compensation proceeding,” which is the language used in R.C. 4123.90, is shortened to “the employee files, institutes, or pursues a workers’ compensation claim.” 2 . Because this ease comes to us on appeal from a judgment on the pleadings in Tomco’s favor, the ■facts are recited from Sutton’s complaint. State ex rel. Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Pontious (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 565, 570, 664 N.E.2d 931 (<HOLDING>). O’Donnell, J., dissenting. {¶ 39} The
holding that when ruling on a rule 12b2 motion the court must accept all of the plaintiffs allegations as true and construct disputed facts in favor of the plaintiff holding that the nonmoving party may not defeat a summary judgment motion by standing on the bare allegations in the pleadings holding that when deciding a motion for judgment on the pleadings the court must construe the material allegations in the complaint in favor of the nonmoving party as true recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss holding that a court considering evidence outside of the administrative record because of its relevance to a conflict of interest must still construe that evidence in favor of the nonmoving party for the purposes of summary judgment