Hobbs v. Pickaway-Ross Career & Technology Ctr. Bd. of Edn.
2022 Ohio 921
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Jon Hobbs was employed as a custodian at Pickaway-Ross CTC (hired 2016); on August 22, 2018 he confronted two teachers about tape on a classroom floor.
- The teachers submitted a joint written statement alleging Hobbs cursed and came across as making a crude sexual remark; Hobbs submitted a written statement denying he used sexual language and saying he apologized and joked about the sweeper.
- The superintendent interviewed the parties and recommended termination; the board voted to terminate Hobbs under R.C. 3319.081 for multiple grounds (incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, neglect, misfeasance, malfeasance, nonfeasance).
- Hobbs appealed to the Ross County Common Pleas Court under R.C. Chapter 2506; the parties stipulated that the termination was based solely on the August 22 incident, that the parties waived procedural objections, and that no additional evidence would be submitted.
- The trial court found insufficient evidence for incompetency, inefficiency, neglect, nonfeasance, and misfeasance, but found by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence that Hobbs committed malfeasance and acted dishonestly; it therefore affirmed the termination.
- Hobbs appealed; the Fourth District Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting his four assignments of error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hobbs) | Defendant's Argument (Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court exceed the stipulation by relying on post-incident written statements to find dishonesty? | Stipulation limited review to the August 22 incident only; using later-written statements to find dishonesty exceeded that scope. | The stipulation permitted the court to consider the evidence related to the August 22 incident (including the written statements) and to decide if a preponderance supported the board's action. | Court of Appeals: Trial court properly considered the written statements as evidence of the August 22 incident; no error. |
| 2. Was the board's termination unsupported by a preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence? | There was no preponderance showing Hobbs cursed the teacher; at most he cursed the circumstance and apologized. | The teachers’ statements and demeanor assessment supported the board’s credibility determination; the manner of Hobbs’s approach could constitute misconduct and support malfeasance/dishonesty findings. | Court: No abuse of discretion; trial court reasonably found sufficient evidence for malfeasance and dishonesty. |
| 3. Was the board’s decision arbitrary/capricious or reviewed under an incorrect standard? | Board deliberation was inadequate (quick decision, multiple inconsistent grounds); the trial court improperly presumed validity of the administrative decision. | The board conducted a pre-termination inquiry and the trial court applied the correct R.C. 2506 standard (weigh evidence for preponderance; presumption of validity appropriate). | Court: Standard of review was correct; procedural complaints were waived by stipulation; no arbitrary or capricious finding. |
| 4. Was Hobbs’s termination unconstitutional for lack of due process? | Hobbs lacked adequate pre- and post-termination procedures (no referee hearing, no administrative post-termination hearing rights like teachers). | Hobbs waived procedural objections; Loudermill requires only minimal pre-termination process when post-termination review is available (here, R.C. 2506 appeal) and Hobbs waived further post-termination evidentiary submissions. | Court: Due-process claim waived by stipulation and, on the merits, not supported (Hobbs was non-teaching, had available R.C. 2506 review but declined to submit additional evidence). |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (minimal pretermination hearing suffices where adequate posttermination process exists)
- Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (Ohio 1979) (common pleas court must weigh record evidence to determine preponderance supporting administrative decision)
- Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 2014) (R.C. 2506.04 standard: administrative orders upheld if preponderance of reliable, probative, substantial evidence supports them)
- Shelly Materials, Inc. v. City of Streetsboro Planning & Zoning Commission, 158 Ohio St.3d 476 (Ohio 2019) (appellate review under R.C. 2506.04 is limited; trial court weighs evidence)
- Cmty. Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 66 Ohio St.3d 452 (Ohio 1993) (courts presume administrative decisions are reasonable and valid while weighing evidence for preponderance)
- Univ. of Cincinnati v. Conrad, 63 Ohio St.2d 108 (Ohio 1980) (courts must give deference to administrative credibility determinations but may reverse if legally significant reasons exist to discredit agency evidence)
- Case W. Res. Univ. v. Ohio Civ. Rts. Comm., 76 Ohio St.3d 168 (Ohio 1996) (definitions of "reliable," "probative," and "substantial" evidence in administrative review)