In Groob v. KeyBank, 108 Ohio St.3d 348, 2006 Ohio 1189, 843 N.E.2d 1170, the Court was asked to determine, among other issues, if an employer can be held liable for the intentional act of an employee even if the "act does not facilitate or promote the employer's business" if the employee acted with apparent authority. Id. at P41. The Court found this was not the law in Ohio and specifically held that "for an employer to be liable for a tortious act of its employee, that employee must be acting within the scope of employment when the employee commits the tortious act." Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. "Merely being aided by his employment status is not enough." Id. at P58. Further, the Court expressly declined to adopt Section 219(2)(d) of the Restatement, and stated that "we have not previously determined that an employer can be found liable for the acts of its employee committed outside the scope of employment." Id. at P54.