Bowman v. S. Vienna
2021 Ohio 4587
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2021Background
- Stephanie Bowman had been an auxiliary officer (2017) and was hired as Village of South Vienna police chief on July 22, 2020; her employment included a probationary period and a six-month evaluation point.
- The mayor documented multiple performance concerns; a March 2021 incident involved leaving a loaded shotgun, a LEADS‑equipped computer, and a village gas card in her cruiser.
- At a March 8, 2021 council meeting Bowman was told she could resign or be fired; she left, cleared her office, and the council terminated her.
- Bowman sued in Clark County Common Pleas, arguing that because six months had elapsed she was no longer probationary and was entitled to the R.C. 737.171 notice/hearing protections; the trial court agreed and ordered reinstatement.
- The Village appealed; the appellate court reversed, holding Bowman remained a probationary employee (no affirmative final appointment by the mayor), R.C. 737.171 applies only to "duly appointed" marshals/chiefs, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction under R.C. 2506.01 because no quasi‑judicial proceeding occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bowman acquired a property interest / was entitled to R.C. 737.171 protections after six months elapsed without affirmative appointment | Bowman: six months elapsed so she presumptively completed probation and is entitled to notice and hearing under R.C. 737.171 | Village: completion of six months alone does not create permanence; mayor must affirmatively recommend and council must appoint; without that she remains probationary and may be discharged at will | Held: Bowman remained probationary because the mayor did not take the affirmative step to finally appoint; R.C. 737.171 protections apply only to "duly appointed" officials, so no due process entitlements |
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Bowman's appeal under R.C. 2506.01 | Bowman implicitly: appeal was proper because termination implicated statutory protections | Village: termination of a probationary employee (no R.C. 737.171 process) is not the product of a quasi‑judicial proceeding and is not appealable | Held: Trial court lacked jurisdiction because there was no quasi‑judicial proceeding (no notice/hearing required); administrative act not appealable under R.C. 2506.01 |
Key Cases Cited
- Curby v. Archon, 216 F.3d 549 (6th Cir. 2000) (probationary employee who completed probation but was not finally appointed has no reasonable expectation of continued employment)
- Matulin v. Lodi, 862 F.2d 609 (6th Cir. 1988) (Ohio precedent holds probationary employees without final appointment have no protected property interest)
- Dillingham v. Woodlawn, 86 Ohio App.3d 54 (Ohio Ct. App.) (probationary status continues until mayor and council concur in removal or final appointment)
- Dillon v. Macedonia, 43 Ohio App.3d 17 (Ohio Ct. App.) (distinguished by court as a civil‑service statute case, not governing village chiefs under R.C. 737.17)