City of Cleveland v. State
2017 Ohio 8882
Oh. Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahog...2017Background
- Cleveland's "Fannie Lewis Law" (C.C.O. Ch. 188, 2003) requires minimum percentages of Cleveland-resident hours on city-assisted public construction contracts and provides contractual remedies for noncompliance. It excludes non-Ohio residents and is implemented as contract terms.
- The City showed the ordinance increased resident work hours and wages on covered projects; other Ohio cities had similar local-hiring policies.
- In 2016 the Ohio General Assembly enacted H.B. 180 (now R.C. 9.75), prohibiting public authorities from requiring contractors to employ specified percentages of residents of a defined area or offering bid bonuses for doing so; legislative findings invoked Article II, §34 (laws for employees' comfort, health, safety, welfare).
- Cleveland sued for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing R.C. 9.75 was invalidly enacted under Article II, §34 and violated municipal home-rule (Article XVIII, §3). The trial court granted a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of R.C. 9.75.
- The state appealed; the appellate court affirmed, holding R.C. 9.75 was not a valid exercise of Article II, §34 authority and unconstitutionally infringed municipal home-rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (City) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 9.75 was valid under Article II, §34 (employee-welfare power) | R.C. 9.75 does not provide for employee comfort, health, safety, or general welfare — it limits municipal contracting power and thus is not within §34 authority | R.C. 9.75 is a statewide law protecting employees' right to choose where to live and thus falls under §34; prior precedents grant broad legislative authority under §34 | Court held R.C. 9.75 was not enacted pursuant to Article II, §34 — it targets municipal contracting, not employee welfare, so §34 does not validate it |
| Whether Cleveland's ordinance (Fannie Lewis Law) is an exercise of municipal police power or local self-government | The Fannie Lewis Law is an exercise of local self-government (contracting authority) to address local unemployment/poverty and set contract terms | State contended the ordinance serves public/economic welfare, has extraterritorial effects, and imposes penalties, so it is police power subject to state law | Court held the ordinance is an exercise of local self-government (contract terms), not police power |
| Whether R.C. 9.75 is a "general law" that can preempt local ordinance under home-rule test | N/A (City argued it was not a general law) | R.C. 9.75 is uniform and statewide so should qualify as a general law preempting conflicting local ordinances | Court held R.C. 9.75 is not a general law: it is not part of a statewide comprehensive scheme, does not set forth police/sanitary regulations, and does not prescribe conduct for citizens generally |
| Overall home-rule preemption (three-part Canton test) | R.C. 9.75 unlawfully preempts local self-government and thus is unconstitutional | R.C. 9.75 validly preempts local ordinances under Article XVIII, §3 as a general law enacted for statewide concerns | Court held R.C. 9.75 does not meet the Canton factors and therefore cannot preempt the Fannie Lewis Law; injunction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen's Pension Fund v. Bd. of Trustees of Police Relief & Pension Fund of Martins Ferry, 12 Ohio St.2d 105, 233 N.E.2d 135 (1967) (Article II, §34 can justify statewide legislation affecting public-employee pension structures)
- Rocky River v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 43 Ohio St.3d 1, 539 N.E.2d 103 (1989) (Article II, §34 may override home-rule when statute addresses general welfare of employees)
- Lima v. State, 122 Ohio St.3d 155, 909 N.E.2d 616 (2009) (R.C. 9.481 upheld under Article II, §34 as protecting employees' residency choice; §34 can negate home-rule in that context)
- Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149, 766 N.E.2d 963 (2002) (articulated four-part test for a statute to qualify as a "general law" for home-rule preemption)
- Dies Elec. Co. v. Akron, 62 Ohio St.2d 322, 405 N.E.2d 1026 (1980) (contracting authority is an aspect of local self-government under the Home Rule Amendment)
- Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors v. Central State Univ., 87 Ohio St.3d 55, 717 N.E.2d 286 (1999) (courts uphold §34 enactments even when they burden employees if legislature deems public interest served)
- Kaminski v. Metal & Wire Prods. Co., 125 Ohio St.3d 250, 927 N.E.2d 1066 (2010) (reaffirmed broad legislative authority under Article II, §34 but acknowledged limits on its reach)