Matheny v. Norton
2013 Ohio 3798
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Nicholas Matheny, a Norton police officer, was terminated in 2010; the PBA filed a grievance under the collective bargaining agreement (CBA).
- The CBA provides final and binding grievance/arbitration procedures for disputes arising from the contract; Article 12(3) permits judicial discrimination suits but states that filing such a suit "waives and forfeits any remedies provided by the Grievance Procedure."
- The City refused to participate in arbitration; Matheny and the PBA petitioned to compel arbitration. The trial court initially granted the petition without a hearing; this Court reversed and remanded, holding a hearing is required under R.C. 2711.03.
- On remand, the City moved for summary judgment after Matheny filed a federal discrimination lawsuit, arguing that the federal suit triggered the CBA waiver provision and thereby forfeited his grievance/arbitration rights.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, concluding the waiver language unambiguously barred all grievance remedies once a judicial discrimination action is filed.
- On appeal, the Ninth District reversed, holding the waiver language in Article 12(3) is ambiguous and summary judgment was improper; the matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does filing a judicial discrimination action waive all remedies under the CBA grievance procedure? | Matheny: waiver only bars pursuing discrimination claims in the grievance process, not unrelated contract/just-cause claims. | City: the CBA unambiguously states filing a discrimination suit "waives and forfeits any remedies" under the Grievance Procedure, so all grievance remedies are lost. | Reversed: ambiguous language; summary judgment improper because waiver/remedy terms reasonably susceptible to narrower interpretation. |
| Was the trial court required to hold a hearing on the petition to compel arbitration after remand? | Matheny: Court's prior remand required a hearing under R.C. 2711.03; remand mandate should be followed. | City: new facts (Matheny's federal suit) raised a distinct issue permitting the court to rule on summary judgment without a hearing. | Held: no error in proceeding on summary judgment without a hearing given new, separate issue introduced on remand. |
| Should the court compel arbitration on whether Matheny was a probationary employee? | Matheny: arbitration applies and arbitrator should decide probationary status. | City: contests arbitrability based on probationary status. | Held: not ripe for review here—the trial court did not resolve the probationary-status issue and must address it per prior directions. |
| Was summary judgment appropriate on the waiver issue? | Matheny: extrinsic evidence and arbitration clause interpretation belong to arbitrator; ambiguity precludes summary judgment. | City: waiver clause is plain and dispositive. | Held: ambiguity exists about scope of "remedies" and waiver; contract interpretation requires resolution of factual/extrinsic evidence—summary judgment improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nolan v. Nolan, 11 Ohio St.3d 1 (doctrine of law of the case compels trial courts to follow appellate mandates)
- Council of Smaller Enters. v. Gates, McDonald & Co., 80 Ohio St.3d 661 (framework for determining arbitration clause scope)
- Maverick Oil & Gas, Inc. v. Barberton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 171 Ohio App.3d 605 (contract interpretation becomes a question of fact when ambiguity requires extrinsic evidence)
- Eagle v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 157 Ohio App.3d 150 (recognizes exceptions to procedural mandates depending on case circumstances)