Knight v. Cleveland Civ. Serv. Comm.
2016 Ohio 5133
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Lenwood Knight, a city of Cleveland construction equipment operator since 1997, was terminated in 2009 for soliciting and performing paid private sewer repairs that the city contended should have been done at no cost to the homeowner, and for related ethics and conduct violations.
- Knight appealed to a referee and the Cleveland Civil Service Commission (CCSC); the referee recommended upholding termination for "conduct unbecoming an employee in the public service," and the CCSC adopted that recommendation.
- Knight appealed to the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 119.12/124.34; the trial court affirmed the CCSC in a May 21, 2015 judgment.
- Knight raised five assignments of error on appeal: (1) alleged incomplete/certification defect in the transmitted administrative record; (2) trial court applied wrong standard of review (not de novo); (3) as-applied constitutional challenge to differing standards of review; (4) insufficiency of evidence supporting termination; and (5) alleged absence of findings of fact/conclusions of law by CCSC denying due process.
- The appellate court affirmed: found the record certification adequate, the deferential R.C. 119.12(D) standard applicable (de novo only for police/fire under R.C. 124.34(C)), Knight waived his as-applied constitutional claim below, the evidence supports CCSC’s finding, and the referee’s report as adopted satisfied procedural-due-process notice and review requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Completeness/certification of administrative record | Knight: CCSC failed to file a complete certified record and affidavit lacked explicit "complete record" language; warrants reinstatement and relief | City/CCSC: supplemented record, affidavit attested "true and accurate," omissions (if any) were harmless and present elsewhere | Affidavit and supplementation were sufficient; Knight waived later complaints and showed no prejudice — assignment overruled |
| Standard of review at trial court | Knight: appeal under R.C. 119.12/124.34 entitles him to de novo review | City: non-police/fire employees get deferential review under R.C. 119.12(D); de novo only for police/fire under R.C. 124.34(C) | Trial court applied deferential "reliable, probative, and substantial evidence" standard correctly; not de novo for Knight |
| Constitutional challenge to differing standards | Knight: as-applied due process/equal protection claim — de novo review for police/fire but not others violates rights to continued employment | City: statutory scheme long-recognized; challenge was not raised below and facial challenge inappropriate in this appeal | Court declined to consider the constitutional claim (waived below and inappropriate here); assignment overruled |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting termination | Knight: record doesn't prove (a) blockage location on street, (b) solicitation scheme with inspector, (c) ethics violations | City: testimony and investigation supported finding that blockage was in street, Knight received referrals from inspector, failed to follow protocol, and acted in a way supporting misconduct finding | Court: under limited review, referee/CCSC credibility determinations supported by competent, credible, substantial evidence; termination upheld |
| Adequacy of findings of fact/conclusions of law by referee/CCSC | Knight: referee report and CCSC enactment lacked required findings/conclusions under CCSC Rule 9.70, denying due process | City: CCSC may adopt referee’s findings; referee’s report contained facts and discussion adequate to notify Knight and permit review | Court: adoption of referee’s report sufficed; Knight had notice and opportunity to be heard; no due-process violation shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Bd. of Edn. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (public employees have property interest in continued employment and are entitled to pretermination due process)
- Westlake Civ. Serv. Comm. v. Pietrick, 142 Ohio St.3d 495 (Ohio 2015) (R.C. 124.34 provides de novo review only for police and fire civil servants)
- Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619 (Ohio 1993) (trial court review of administrative orders governed by substantial-evidence standard)
- McKenzie v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 5 Ohio St.2d 229 (Ohio 1966) (agency certification language construing sufficiency of administrative record certification)
- Lorms v. State, 48 Ohio St.2d 153 (Ohio 1976) (omission from certified record does not require relief where omission causes no prejudice)
- Chupka v. Saunders, 28 Ohio St.3d 325 (Ohio 1986) (discusses legislative distinction in review standards for police/fire under R.C. 124.34)