Cleveland v. State (Slip Opinion)
136 N.E.3d 466
Ohio2019Background
- Cleveland enacted the Fannie M. Lewis Resident Employment Law (Cleveland Codified Ordinances Ch. 188) requiring ≥20% of labor hours on public-construction contracts ≥$100,000 be performed by city residents and imposing penalties for noncompliance.
- In 2016 the General Assembly enacted R.C. 9.75 (H.B. 180), forbidding public authorities from requiring contractors to employ a specified number or percentage of residents or offering bid bonuses for doing so.
- Cleveland sued, and the trial court permanently enjoined R.C. 9.75; the Eighth District affirmed, holding R.C. 9.75 was not authorized by Article II, §34 and conflicted with municipal home-rule authority.
- The State appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, which accepted two propositions: (1) whether R.C. 9.75 is a valid exercise of Article II, §34 authority; (2) whether the statute satisfies home-rule/general-law requirements.
- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding R.C. 9.75 is a valid exercise of Article II, §34—protecting the comfort and general welfare of employees by prohibiting residency-based hiring terms—and therefore supersedes conflicting local ordinances; it remanded to dissolve the injunction.
- The court resolved the case on Article II, §34 grounds and did not reach, as a necessary holding, the full home-rule/general-law analysis (separate concurring and dissenting opinions addressed scope and limits of §34).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Cleveland) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Is R.C. 9.75 a valid exercise of the legislature’s power under Article II, §34 (to provide for the comfort, health, safety, and general welfare of employees)? | §34 is limited to workplace regulation (hours, wages, safety); R.C. 9.75 regulates municipal contracting, not employee welfare. | §34 is a broad grant to protect employees’ welfare, including preventing local residency preferences that harm employees’ ability to choose where to live; Lima supports that protection. | Held: Yes. Court held §34 authorizes R.C. 9.75 as protecting the comfort and general welfare of all construction employees and reversed the injunction. |
| 2) Does R.C. 9.75 violate municipal home-rule authority and conflict with Cleveland’s Fannie Lewis Law? | R.C. 9.75 unlawfully preempts Cleveland’s home-rule ordinance; the Fannie Lewis Law is a local exercise of contracting power to help residents. | Because R.C. 9.75 was enacted under §34, it is not limited by the Home Rule Amendment; alternatively, R.C. 9.75 is a general law that preempts conflicting local laws. | Held: Court resolved the dispute under §34 and held the state statute displaces the municipal ordinance; it did not need to reach an independent general-law preemption holding. |
| 3) Is R.C. 9.75 a "general law" (for home-rule preemption analysis)? | The statute is not a general law: it targets municipal contracting and does not prescribe conduct for citizens generally or form part of a statewide comprehensive scheme. | The statute applies statewide to public authorities (a coherent class) and addresses a recurring problem of local residency preferences; it can constitute a general law. | Held: Majority did not rely on the general-law test (decision rests on §34). Concurring and dissenting opinions debate whether §34 should be read broadly and whether R.C. 9.75 independently satisfies the general-law requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lima v. State, 909 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio 2009) (upheld statute barring municipal employee residency requirements under Article II, §34; court relied on employees’ residence choice as part of welfare)
- Rocky River v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 539 N.E.2d 103 (Ohio 1989) (describes Article II, §34 as broad grant re: employees’ welfare)
- Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors v. Cent. State Univ., 717 N.E.2d 286 (Ohio 1999) (recognized §34 authority for laws concerning public-employee labor conditions)
- State ex rel. Mun. Constr. Equip. Operators’ Labor Council v. Cleveland, 870 N.E.2d 1174 (Ohio 2007) (discussed legislative authority under §34 for employee benefits and protections)
- Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (U.S. 1905) (historical backdrop: Supreme Court decision that prompted adoption of §34 to protect state power to regulate labor conditions)