P.D. v. Copley-Fairlawn City Sch. Dist.
2017 Ohio 9132
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- P.D. and J.D. are parents of a student expelled from Copley High School after a November 2015 disciplinary incident.
- Parents filed a due-process complaint under Ohio Adm. Code provisions challenging the district’s denial of a manifestation determination (alleged disability issue).
- Separately, they appealed the expulsion to the Board of Education under R.C. 3313.66(E); the Board affirmed the expulsion while the due-process complaint was still pending.
- After the Board’s decision, parents filed an administrative appeal in Summit County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. Chapter 2506; the trial court dismissed the appeal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because the due-process proceedings had not concluded.
- The parents appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals, arguing the trial court erred as a matter of law by dismissing their R.C. 2506 appeal on exhaustion grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly dismissed R.C. 2506 administrative appeal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Parents: dismissal improper; exhaustion affirmative defense not applicable to an administrative appeal under R.C. 2506 | School/District: appeal premature while due-process proceedings unresolved, so exhaustion required | Court held dismissal was error; failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense not available in R.C. 2506 administrative appeal, so reverse and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 81 Ohio St.3d 608 (1998) (describing the limited scope of judicial review in administrative appeals)
- Independence v. Office of Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (2014) (explaining standard of review for trial court in administrative appeals)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (same; appellate review focuses on whether trial court decision is supported by the record)
- Jones v. Chagrin Falls, 77 Ohio St.3d 456 (1997) (holding failure-to-exhaust is an affirmative defense in civil actions)
- Kaufman v. Newburgh Heights, 26 Ohio St.2d 217 (1971) (affirmative defense of exhaustion applies in certain civil actions such as mandamus or damages)