2017 Ohio 7125
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Helen and her son Gary owned/managed a rental property and were charged (Sept. 2008) with housing discrimination under R.C. 4112.02(H). Patricia Kidd signed HUD complaint forms initiating the charge.
- The OCRC’s ALJ found the Gryboskys engaged in unlawful discrimination (households with children and disabled persons); the Commission adopted liability but modified damages and ordered cease-and-desist, damages, fees, and training.
- The Gryboskys appealed to the Ashtabula C.P. Ct.; that court modified and affirmed parts of the Commission’s decision and dismissed charges against Gary.
- Helen appealed, raising four errors: (1) charging instruments lacked the R.C. 4112.05(B)(1) oath; (2) Commission failed required pre-complaint conciliation efforts; (3) FHRC lacked standing/actual damages; (4) constitutionality of Ohio fair housing statutes.
- The Eleventh District focused on whether R.C. 4112.05(B)(1) required a sworn oath (not merely a penalty-of-perjury declaration) for R.C. 4112.02(H) housing charges and whether the Commission therefore had jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4112.05(B)(1) requires a charge alleging R.C. 4112.02(H) be filed under oath | Grybosky: the statute requires a sworn oath; HUD forms signed under penalty of perjury do not satisfy the statute | OCRC: the administrative rule and practice allow penalty-of-perjury statements; oath is not jurisdictional | Held: statute requires oath; penalty-of-perjury form did not satisfy statutory oath requirement |
| Whether OCRC’s independent-investigation provision obviates the oath requirement | Grybosky: B(2) does not apply to division (H) claims, so oath required | OCRC: proceeding was via Commission initiative so oath rule inapplicable | Held: R.C. 4112.05(B)(2) excludes division (H); oath requirement applies |
| Whether the Ohio Administrative Code’s penalty-of-perjury affirmation can substitute for statutory oath | Grybosky: OAC cannot override or subtract from the statute | OCRC: OAC permits signed/affirmed complaint; technical noncompliance not jurisdictional | Held: OAC conflicts with statute and is invalid to extent it relaxes oath requirement |
| Whether prior case law and practice permit penalty-of-perjury statements to invoke jurisdiction | Grybosky: Ohio precedent requires sworn affidavit/affidavit-equivalent for jurisdiction | OCRC: federal cases and some state appellate decisions relax the requirement for related federal-timing or remedial purposes | Held: federal cases relied upon are inapposite; Ohio cases require sworn oath; jurisdiction lacking here |
Key Cases Cited
- Powell v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 51 Ohio App.2d 197 (10th Dist.) (strict construction: oath requirement jurisdictional)
- State ex rel. Republic Steel Corp. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 44 Ohio St.2d 178 (Ohio Supreme Court) (OCRC lacked jurisdiction when statutory prerequisites not satisfied)
- GMS Mgt. Co., Inc. v. Ohio Civil Rights Comm., 64 N.E.3d 1025 (8th Dist.) (analyzed oath vs. penalty-of-perjury; court allowed lesser form but was distinguished)
- Toledo Bar Assn. v. Neller, 102 Ohio St.3d 1234 (Ohio Supreme Court) (unsworn statements under penalty of perjury cannot substitute for sworn affidavits)
- In re Disqualification of Donnelly, 134 Ohio St.3d 1221 (Ohio Supreme Court) (unsworn penalty-of-perjury statements insufficient for affidavit requirement)
- Baker v. Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc., 820 F. Supp. 1050 (S.D. Ohio) (federal context: letter not under oath treated as sufficient for ADEA timing purposes but did not decide state-jurisdiction question)
- Ackman v. Ohio Knife Co., 589 F. Supp. 768 (S.D. Ohio) (federal ADEA/timing context; commencement of state proceedings for federal purposes)