2019 Ohio 4089
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background:
- Martin Desmond, an assistant Mahoning County prosecutor, raised concerns about coworker APA Dawn Cantalamessa’s handling of two related cases (State v. White and State v. Robinson).
- Desmond exchanged text messages with supervisors on Dec. 22–23, 2016 and delivered a nine‑page memo to Prosecutor Paul Gains on Jan. 27, 2017 after repeated requests from supervisors.
- Gains terminated Desmond on April 5, 2017; Desmond claimed the termination was retaliatory for whistleblowing under R.C. 124.341.
- An ALJ and the State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR) dismissed Desmond’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding the texts and memo did not constitute a protected written report and excluding reports of attorney ethical violations from R.C. 124.341’s scope.
- The Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas affirmed SPBR; on appeal the Sixth District reversed, holding SPBR misinterpreted R.C. 124.341 and remanded for merits consideration.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether SPBR added extra jurisdictional requirements (good‑faith/motive/time/voluntariness) and excluded attorney ethics violations from R.C. 124.341 | Desmond: R.C. 124.341 requires only a written report to specified officials identifying violations; statute has no time, motive, or voluntariness limits and does not exclude Rules of Professional Conduct | Prosecutor: statute should not cover reports of attorney ethical violations and should exclude reports made only at employer’s direction | Held: Reversed — SPBR improperly added requirements and may not exclude attorney professional‑conduct rules; R.C. 124.341’s plain language covers such reports and contains only the accuracy‑effort requirement in (C) |
| 2. Whether SPBR erred by making factual assumptions and dismissing without an evidentiary hearing | Desmond: facts about timing, motive, and whether memo was involuntary are disputed and require a hearing | Prosecutor: SPBR reasonably found memo was produced only under direction and delay showed lack of good faith | Held: Moot — court remanded on legal error in Issue 1 and did not reach factual‑hearing claim |
| 3. Whether reliance on Prosecutor Gains’s affidavit (allegedly inaccurate/outside knowledge) required striking and a hearing | Desmond: Gains’s affidavit contained inaccuracies and matters outside his knowledge, so SPBR erred in relying on it without full fact‑finding | Prosecutor: affidavit supported dismissal | Held: Moot — not reached because of disposition on Issue 1 |
| 4. Whether denial of oral hearing/subpoenas denied due process | Desmond: denial prevented development of record on jurisdictional facts and credibility | Prosecutor: administrative process sufficed at threshold stage | Held: Moot — not reached because case remanded for merits after resolving Issue 1 |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Metropolitan Govt. of Nashville & Davidson Cty., 555 U.S. 271 (2009) (an employee’s protected report made in response to an employer's inquiry can be protected whistleblowing)
- State v. Gordon, 153 Ohio St.3d 601, 109 N.E.3d 1201 (2018) (statutory interpretation starts with the statute's plain language)
- Patton v. Diemer, 35 Ohio St.3d 68, 518 N.E.2d 941 (1988) (absence of an express statutory exclusion suggests none was intended)
- State ex rel. United States Steel Corp. v. Zaleski, 98 Ohio St.3d 395, 786 N.E.2d 39 (2003) (legislative intent is paramount in statutory construction)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)