Bollinger v. Ohio Dept. of Edn.
2018 Ohio 3714
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Mark Bollinger, a five-year professional adolescence-to-young-adult licensed teacher, was accused of an inappropriate relationship with a then-high-school senior ("Student 1") beginning April 2015 and continuing after her graduation; allegations included flirtatious texts, private meetings, a partially-clothed massage at his parents’ house, supplying alcohol at a hotel, and assisting Student 1 in drafting exculpatory statements.
- The Marion County Sheriff’s Office found no criminal conduct; the River Valley School District investigated, terminated Bollinger’s employment, and the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) initiated administrative charges under R.C. 3319.31(B)(1) for conduct unbecoming the profession.
- An administrative hearing was held; the hearing officer found misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence and recommended permanent revocation of Bollinger’s license.
- The State Board of Education adopted the hearing officer’s recommendation, permanently revoking Bollinger’s license and finding the ODE had proven Counts 1–5 (inappropriate relationship, unbecoming conduct via electronic messages, massage while partially clothed, providing alcohol to minors, and aiding Student 1’s responses).
- Bollinger appealed to the Marion County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the State Board; Bollinger then appealed to the Third District Court of Appeals, raising three assignments of error challenging sufficiency of evidence, consideration of mitigating factors, and denial of a motion to supplement the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the State Board’s finding supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence? | Bollinger: the Board improperly credited Student 1’s testimony over his; alleged post‑graduation conduct is irrelevant to pre‑graduation misconduct. | State Board/ODE: contemporaneous texts, witness testimony, and Bollinger’s own admissions supported the finding; post‑graduation conduct is relevant circumstantial evidence. | Court: affirmed — evidence (texts, witness corroboration, admissions) was reliable/probative/substantial; post‑graduation conduct was relevant. |
| 2. Did the Board adequately consider mitigating factors before imposing permanent revocation? | Bollinger: his long positive record, community service, and character testimony were mitigating and should have prevented permanent revocation. | State Board: considered and weighed statutory mitigating/aggravating factors and found aggravators outweighed mitigators (obstruction, poor judgment, lack of remorse). | Court: affirmed — Board and hearing officer adequately considered factors; sanction was not an abuse of discretion. |
| 3. Did the trial court err in denying Bollinger’s motion to add post‑hearing evidence (R.C. 119.12(K)) and find the Board considered his objections? | Bollinger: newly discovered admissions by Student 1 of additional lies warranted supplementing the record and reconsideration. | State Board/Trial Court: Bollinger failed to identify specific newly discovered, material evidence or show it could not have been discovered with due diligence. | Court: affirmed — motion lacked specificity and failed the newly‑discovered/due diligence standard; Board considered objections. |
Key Cases Cited
- Our Place, Inc. v. Ohio Liquor Control Comm., 63 Ohio St.3d 570 (Ohio 1992) (defines reliable, probative, and substantial evidence standards)
- University of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (administrative factfinding entitled to deference on credibility when evidence conflicts)
- Ohio Historical Soc. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 466 (Ohio 1993) (agency findings presumed correct and deferred to unless unsupportable)
- Rossford Exempted Village School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Bd. of Edn., 63 Ohio St.3d 705 (Ohio 1992) (limited appellate review of administrative orders)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion)
- Flaskamp v. Dearborn Pub. Schs., 385 F.3d 935 (6th Cir. 2004) (post‑graduation intimate conduct may provide circumstantial evidence that relationship began prior to graduation)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 130 Ohio St.3d 446 (Ohio 2011) (definition of preponderance and related standards)