Furnas v. Clay Twp. Trustees
2012 Ohio 5408
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Furnas, a sergeant with Clay Township Police, was terminated following a disciplinary hearing after being charged with Unsatisfactory Performance, Unbecoming Conduct, and Courtesy violations based on an MCSO report.
- Charging Form issued August 9, 2011 informed Furnas of a hearing on August 16, 2011 regarding disciplinary action up to termination.
- Welborn testified Furnas refused to investigate her vandalism complaint and deflected responsibility to Chief Perkins while Furnas spoke with Perkins by phone.
- Perkins directed Furnas to handle Welborn’s investigation; Furnas later handed the phone to Welborn and said he would not act on her case.
- The CTBT terminated Furnas on August 16, 2011 and Furnas appealed under R.C. 505.49; the common pleas court affirmed, finding substantial evidence supported termination and that due process was satisfied.
- The appellate court ultimately affirmed, noting Furnas received notice, opportunity to respond, and cross-examination of witnesses at the pre-termination hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper framework for review of a township termination | Furnas argues due process and proper statutory framework were not followed | CTBT provided notice, hearing, and opportunity to respond; R.C. 2506 applies | R.C. 2506 governs; findings supported by record evidence |
| Whether Furnas was denied due process | Pre-termination hearing was an ambush; no real opportunity to prepare | Pre-termination hearing satisfied due process; ample notice and opportunity to respond | No due process violation; pre-termination hearing and post-termination remedies adequate |
| Adequacy of evidence to support termination | Record lacks progressive discipline and clear justification | Evidence showed Furnas refused investigation and used vulgar language; substantial evidence supports termination | CTBT’s August 16, 2011 termination supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence |
| Effect of not following progressive discipline | Furnas entitled to progressive discipline before drastic action | Statutory scheme allows termination with notice and hearing; no requirement of progressive discipline | No requirement of progressive discipline; statutory due process satisfied |
| Timeliness and adequacy of CTBT brief and procedural rulings | CTBT brief untimely and its filing prejudiced Furnas | Trial court properly refused striking CTBT’s brief; no abuse of discretion | No abuse of discretion; CTBT brief admissible and rulings affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 1984) (appellate review of administrative decisions; substantial evidence standard aligns with 2506.04)
- Hale v. Board of Edn., 13 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 1968) (pretermination process; emphasis on due process sufficiency)
- Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ., 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (two-step due process: notice and opportunity to respond; post-termination review suffices)
- Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (Ohio 1979) (analogy of review standards; 2506.04 vs 119.12 treated similarly)
- Donoh(o)o v. Madison Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 1994 WL 692929 (Ohio 1994) (recognizes chapter 2506 as governing administrative appeals from political subdivisions (discussed for framework))
- Harmon v. Baldwin, 107 Ohio St.3d 232 (Ohio 2005) (procedural rulings; abuse of discretion standard in administrative appeals)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2000) (standard for reviewing administrative decisions; substantial evidence framework)
- Donohoo v. Madison Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 14007 (1994) (discusses proper scope of R.C. 2506; applicability to political subdivisions)
- Madison Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Donohoo, 1994 WL 692929 (Ohio 1994) (precedes Donohoo discussion; reinforces 2506 framework)