Parrett v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Review Comm'n
2017 Ohio 2778
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Bradley Parrett was hired as a school resource officer in Aug 2011; his contract required maintaining a cooperative relationship with the Ross County Sheriff’s Department and being a commissioned law‑enforcement officer.
- In Nov 2014 the Ross County Sheriff revoked Parrett’s commission after a citizen complaint; Parrett resigned Dec 12, 2014 and applied for unemployment benefits the same day.
- ODJFS initially denied benefits as a disqualifying separation (discharged for just cause because Parrett failed to maintain the required commission); a redetermination similarly disallowed benefits.
- At the Review Commission hearing the employer declined to participate; the Commission found Parrett was decommissioned, could no longer perform essential duties, was offered discharge or resignation, and thus was discharged for just cause—benefits denied.
- Parrett appealed to the Pickaway County Common Pleas Court, which reversed the Commission, finding the Ross County‑affiliation requirement was a new job condition and Parrett was not terminated for just cause.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding the Review Commission’s decision was supported by competent, credible evidence and Parrett’s loss of commission made him unsuitable for the position under established law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parrett) | Defendant's Argument (Director/Employer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parrett was discharged for "just cause" under R.C. 4141.29(D)(2)(a) | Parrett said his contract only required being a "certified" officer, not affiliation with Ross County, and the Ross‑affiliation was a changed/new requirement, so he lacked fault | Employer/Director: contract explicitly required a Ross County affiliation and a commissioned status; losing the commission prevented performance of essential duties and constituted fault | Held for Director: Commission reasonably found just cause—Parrett was unsuitable after losing his commission and requirements did not change |
| Whether employer made known expectations at hiring and whether job requirements changed | Parrett argued he was unaware of the Ross‑commission requirement at hiring | Director: hire documents show requirement to maintain cooperation with Ross Sheriff and be a commissioned officer; no evidence requirements changed pre‑termination | Held: expectations were made known and did not change |
| Whether loss of commission was fault attributable to Parrett (vs. an excusable circumstance) | Parrett contended he didn’t voluntarily give up his commission and thus the loss was beyond his control | Director: commission revoked after a complaint; police officers are held to higher standards and fault can be inferred from decommissioning | Held: Court found some fault supported by the record and decommissioning justified termination for just cause |
| Standard of review for Commission decision | Parrett urged trial court’s deference to its findings | Director relied on statutory standard: affirm unless decision is unlawful, unreasonable, or against manifest weight of evidence | Held: Court applied deferential standard and concluded Commission’s findings were supported, reversing the trial court |
Key Cases Cited
- Tzangas, Plakas & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 73 Ohio St.3d 694 (Ohio 1995) (framework for "unsuitability" and just‑cause analysis for unemployment benefits)
- Irvine v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 19 Ohio St.3d 15 (Ohio 1985) (deference to agency factfinding; standard for reversing Commission)
- Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Job and Family Servs., 129 Ohio St.3d 332 (Ohio 2011) (failure to obtain/maintain required certification is just cause when employment is conditioned on it)
- City of Warrensville Heights v. Jennings, 58 Ohio St.3d 206 (Ohio 1991) (police officers held to higher conduct standard; just cause may exist for officers where it would not for others)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 59 Ohio St.3d 188 (Ohio 1991) (statutory reference on discharge for just cause)
- Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio 1988) (discussion of standards in administrative appeals)
- Sprowls v. Ohio Department of Job & Family Services, 156 Ohio App.3d 513 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004) (distinguishing economic inability to perform from employee fault for just‑cause analysis)