2019 Ohio 223
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Janet Hageman, an assistant treasurer for Bryan City School District (BCSD), reported BCSD treasurer Rob Rosswurm for purchasing a computer through the district for his daughter and not paying sales tax at the time of purchase. Rosswurm later reimbursed BCSD and paid the tax.
- Hageman made reports to the State Auditor, to some school officials, and ultimately to the Williams County Sheriff in December 2015 after she believed internal reporting produced no corrective action and that she faced retaliation.
- BCSD disciplined Hageman on multiple occasions (2014 reprimand and 2‑day suspension; Dec. 2015 three‑day suspension and performance plan; April 2016 discipline for alleged misconduct involving a text message), and the board terminated her in May 2016.
- Hageman appealed her termination to the State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR); an ALJ found her sheriff report was protected whistleblowing under Ohio Rev. Code § 124.341 and recommended reinstatement. SPBR adopted the recommendation and ordered reinstatement to assistant treasurer.
- The Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed SPBR’s order; BCSD appealed to the Tenth District Court of Appeals challenging (1) the whistleblower protection finding and (2) that the termination was motivated by protected activity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SPBR had reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that Hageman’s report to law enforcement was protected whistleblowing under R.C. 124.341 | Hageman: she reasonably and in good faith believed the purchase was illegal, had reported it internally and to the auditor, and made a reasonable effort to verify before reporting to the sheriff | BCSD: Hageman could not have reasonably believed a crime occurred because Rosswurm reimbursed the district and paid sales tax; delay undercuts reasonable belief | Court: Affirmed—record contained reliable, probative, substantial evidence supporting SPBR’s finding that Hageman’s sheriff report was protected activity |
| Whether termination was motivated by Hageman’s protected whistleblowing (pretext/causal link) | Hageman: disciplinary actions began after she reported; supervisors knew of reports and may have considered them when recommending termination | BCSD: termination was for repeated unprofessional, disrespectful, and dishonest conduct; not motivated by whistleblowing | Court: Affirmed—evidence supported SPBR’s conclusion that whistleblowing was considered and could have motivated the termination; deference given to agency credibility findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (standard of appellate review in R.C. 119.12 administrative appeals)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Leslie v. Ohio Dept. of Dev., 171 Ohio App.3d 55 (10th Dist.) (analysis of causation and evidence in whistleblower termination claims)
- Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Mental Retardation & Dev. Disabilities v. Professionals Guild of Ohio, 46 Ohio St.3d 147 (party/person definitions for R.C. 119 appeals)