Pryor v. Dir., Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs. (Slip Opinion)
148 Ohio St. 3d 1
Ohio2016Background
- Marcus Pryor, an Army veteran, was ordered to repay $10,800 in unemployment benefits after ODJFS redetermined his eligibility; the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission affirmed the redetermination.
- The commission mailed a July 24, 2013 final decision listing Pryor, the Army (his former employer), and the ODJFS director with addresses, and included an "Appeal Rights" paragraph instructing appellants to "name all interested parties as appellees," but did not label which listed recipients were "interested parties."
- Pryor filed a notice of appeal in Summit County common pleas court within 30 days naming only the ODJFS director as appellee and asking the clerk to serve the Army and director; the common pleas court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pryor did not name the Army.
- The Ninth District reversed, holding R.C. 4141.282(C) makes timely filing the sole jurisdictional requirement and that failing to name interested parties is a nonjurisdictional defect.
- The Ohio Supreme Court granted review on whether R.C. 4141.282(D)’s party-naming requirement is jurisdictional and consolidated appeals.
- The Court held timely filing the notice of appeal is the only jurisdictional requirement under R.C. 4141.282(C), but remanded because the commission failed to identify the Army as an "interested party" on its decision, so Pryor’s 30‑day appeal period never began.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4141.282 requires naming all interested parties in the notice of appeal to vest jurisdiction in the common pleas court | Pryor: timely filing of notice (and identifying the decision) suffices; naming additional parties is nonjurisdictional | ODJFS director: R.C. 4141.282(D) is mandatory and jurisdictional; appellant must name all interested parties | Court: R.C. 4141.282(C) makes timely filing the only act required to perfect an appeal and vest jurisdiction; naming parties is procedural, not jurisdictional |
| Whether the commission complied with R.C. 4141.282(D) when it listed recipients but did not label "interested parties" | Pryor: the decision did not identify interested parties as required | ODJFS director: listing recipients satisfied the statute; appellant still must name parties | Court: commission failed to strictly comply with R.C. 4141.282(D) because it did not identify which recipients were "interested parties," so Pryor’s 30‑day appeal period never started |
| Effect of commission’s procedural noncompliance on Pryor’s appeal period | Pryor: appeal period runs from mailing and he timely filed | ODJFS director: appeal period ran and dismissal for failure to name parties was proper | Court: because commission did not strictly comply with (D), the appeal period never began and dismissal by common pleas court for lack of jurisdiction was correct |
| Remedy and next steps | Pryor: seek reinstatement of appeal | ODJFS director: uphold dismissal | Court: reverse Ninth District to extent it reinstated the common pleas action; remand to commission to issue a decision that identifies all interested parties; Pryor may refile after proper decision is issued |
Key Cases Cited
- Zier v. Bureau of Unemp. Comp., 151 Ohio St. 123 (1949) (appeal must be perfected in the mode prescribed by statute)
- Proctor v. Giles, 61 Ohio St.2d 211 (1980) (agency compliance with procedural prerequisites required before appeal period runs)
- Sun Refining & Marketing Co. v. Brennan, 31 Ohio St.3d 306 (1987) (agency must comply with R.C. 119.09 before appeal period begins)
- Hughes v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce, 114 Ohio St.3d 47 (2007) (agency must strictly comply with procedural service requirements before appeal period starts)
- Spencer v. Freight Handlers, Inc., 131 Ohio St.3d 316 (2012) (statutory language designating the filing of the notice as the only act required makes that filing the sole jurisdictional prerequisite)
- Nucorp, Inc. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Revision, 64 Ohio St.2d 20 (1980) (courts should not create jurisdictional requirements not clearly mandated by statute)