Cleveland Fire Fighters, Local 93 of the I.A.F.F. v. Cleveland, 2020 Ohio 4751

Local 93 challenged the City of Cleveland’s 2014 use of noncompetitive exams to fill battalion chief and assistant chief vacancies, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and a writ of mandamus.
The trial court initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; this court reversed and remanded, after which the City had promoted six captains (one later retired) and one battalion chief via the noncompetitive process.
On remand the trial court found the 2014 noncompetitive process unlawful, enjoined further noncompetitive promotions, and later issued a writ ordering the City to administer competitive examinations, certify eligibility lists, and fill current assistant chief and battalion chief vacancies within six months.
Local 93 later asked the trial court for a specific promotional procedure (two separate exams with eligibility lists divided by promotional period), back pay/seniority for those who would have been promoted under a competitive process, and attorneys’ fees.
The trial court granted the writ to require competitive exams but denied Local 93’s claims for back pay and attorneys’ fees; Local 93 appealed those denials.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the court must order two separate promotional exams and specify list division	Local 93: Court must require two separate exams (one per rank) and split eligibility lists by promotional period; prevent promoted individuals from gaining seniority without competitive test	City: Writ and orders are sufficiently clear; City already preparing two separate tests; no remand needed	Court: Affirmed; orders/writ were clear and contemplated separate exams; no remand for clarification
2. Entitlement to back pay, seniority, and other benefits	Local 93: Members denied promotions by City’s noncompetitive process are entitled to back pay, seniority and benefits	City: Relief was not timely pleaded, speculative, and not supported by proof; damages not shown with certainty	Court: Affirmed denial; relator must establish wrongfulness and the amount with certainty (Bednar); here relief was speculative and Gibbons-like, not Morgan-level bad-faith violation
3. Award of attorneys’ fees	Local 93: Fees warranted due to City’s conduct	City: No statutory basis; no bad faith to justify fees	Court: Affirmed denial; no bad faith found and trial court did not abuse discretion

Doe v. Shaffer, 90 Ohio St.3d 388 (de novo standard for appellate review of summary judgment)
Morgan v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 285 (municipal violation of R.C. and bad faith can justify back pay and seniority)
State ex rel. Gibbons v. Cleveland, 9 Ohio St.3d 216 (public employee has no right to salary/benefits from a rank prior to actual appointment)
State ex rel. Bednar v. N. Canton, 69 Ohio St.3d 278 (relator must prove wrongful denial and establish amount due with certainty to obtain back pay)
State ex rel. Crockett v. Robinson, 67 Ohio St.2d 363 (back pay/reinstatement available where employer violated statutory requirements leading to discharge)
State ex rel. Dean v. Huddle, 45 Ohio St.2d 234 (back pay/reinstatement following illegal layoff)