Binder v. Cuyahoga Cty., 2016 Ohio 8305

In 2011 Cuyahoga County changed official schedules: employees shifted from a 35-hour week (with unpaid lunch and early departure at 3:30) to a 40-hour week that included an unpaid lunch hour and required staying until 4:30, without increasing salaries.
Appellants (about 11 named employees, alleging ~927 similarly situated employees) sued Cuyahoga County for declaratory and pecuniary relief, claiming the schedule change unlawfully reduced their hourly rate in violation of R.C. Chapter 124.
Plaintiffs sought class certification to represent all affected county employees.
The county moved to dismiss (or to consolidate/stay with Dolezal, an earlier-filed identical action). The trial court granted dismissal, finding the lunch-break policy change was not an increase in the workweek or a reduction in pay.
On appeal the county argued lack of jurisdiction based on plaintiffs’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to join necessary parties; the court found exhaustion was forfeited but held joinder/class certification and potential consolidation were dispositive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) was proper when the trial court made a factual finding contrary to the complaint	Binder: complaint alleges schedule change increased hours (35 → 40) and reduced hourly rate; dismissal was improper on the pleadings	County: schedule change merely formalized lunch break, not an increase in compensated work time or reduction in pay	Court: reversal — trial court improperly resolved factual issues at dismissal; complaint should not have been dismissed on that ground
Whether the trial court had authority to render declaratory relief absent joinder of all affected employees	Binder: sought class certification to include all affected employees, satisfying joinder requirement pending class decision	County: named plaintiffs failed to join all necessary parties and thus court lacked jurisdiction to decide declaratory relief	Court: plaintiffs have a legally protectable interest; absence of necessary parties is jurisdictional but class certification (or consolidation with Dolezal) would cure joinder; remanded to address class certification and consolidation

Dworning v. Euclid, 892 N.E.2d 420 (Ohio 2008) (failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense that can be waived)
Jones v. Chagrin Falls, 674 N.E.2d 1388 (Ohio 1997) (same principle on administrative exhaustion)
Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Akron, 846 N.E.2d 478 (Ohio 2006) (failure to join necessary parties precludes declaratory judgment)
Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union 83 v. Union Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 715 N.E.2d 127 (Ohio 1999) (joinder requirement for declaratory relief)
Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. Ohio, 941 N.E.2d 1161 (Ohio 2010) (definition of legally protectable interest for joinder purposes)