Schneider v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs.
2017 Ohio 1278
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Nov. 2008 the Cuyahoga County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted an Early Retirement Incentive Program (ERIP) that expressly excluded the Sanitary Engineering Division (SED) by creating an employing unit "Cuyahoga County, excluding the SED."
- SED employees (union and non‑union) filed a grievance under the ERIP process; the county administrator held a hearing and denied the grievance in Jan. 2009; no SED employee filed an R.C. 2506.01 administrative appeal from that denial.
- The union filed a taxpayer action (Teamsters) challenging the exclusion; the trial court granted declaratory relief but this court affirmed standing and futility (Teamsters I); the Ohio Supreme Court reversed on standing and held employees failed to exhaust administrative remedies (Teamsters II).
- Schneider and other individual SED employees sued in their personal capacities seeking declaratory and equitable relief; the trial court granted summary judgment for the BOCC on the ground plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies; that judgment is on appeal.
- The Eighth District affirms, holding plaintiffs cannot invoke the futility exception to exhaustion because the ERIP provided an administrative grievance and the county administrator’s decision was appealable to the common pleas court; thus plaintiffs’ failure to pursue an R.C. 2506.01 appeal bars declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies before seeking declaratory relief | Schneider: exhaustion would be futile because the same county officials who excluded SED participated and retaliated; administrative appeal would be a vain act | BOCC: ERIP provided a grievance and the county administrator’s decision was appealable under R.C. 2506.01; plaintiffs failed to pursue that appeal | Held: Plaintiffs were required to exhaust; futility exception does not apply because the grievance process and judicial review were available and plaintiffs did not show the administrator lacked power to grant relief |
| Whether summary judgment was improper because factual disputes (pretext/retaliation) existed | Schneider: evidence shows BOCC reversed grant of ERIP for SED in retaliation and pretext, creating genuine issues of fact | BOCC: Teamsters II forecloses that argument because exhaustion is prerequisite; factual disputes do not excuse failure to appeal | Held: Summary judgment proper; exhaustion is dispositive so remaining factual disputes are moot |
| Whether the trial court improperly relied on BOCC affidavits and out‑of‑context testimony | Schneider: court relied on BOCC attorney affidavit and unrelated OPERS testimony, ignoring contrary evidence | BOCC: record shows no material dispute about failure to appeal; affidavit and record support that legal conclusion | Held: Court did not err to decide on exhaustion ground; evidentiary objections are moot once failure to exhaust is established |
| Whether prior practices or historical inclusion of senior SED employees created a right that excused exhaustion | Schneider: historical participation and subsequent reversal support claim and show administrative appeal would be futile | BOCC: prior practice does not eliminate the requirement to exhaust available remedies; plaintiffs still could have appealed administrator’s denial | Held: Prior practice does not negate need to exhaust; plaintiffs’ failure to pursue available appeal is dispositive |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 436 v. Bd. of County Commrs, 132 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2012) (held employees must exhaust administrative remedies and reversed this court on standing and exhaustion)
- State ex rel. Teamsters Local Union No. 436 v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Commrs, 194 Ohio App.3d 258 (8th Dist. 2011) (appellate panel initially held exhaustion futile and allowed declaratory relief)
- Schomaeker v. First Natl. Bank of Ottawa, 66 Ohio St.2d 304 (Ohio 1981) (person entitled to R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal is not entitled to declaratory judgment when failure to exhaust is asserted)
- Nemazee v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 56 Ohio St.3d 109 (Ohio 1990) (‘vain act’ futility occurs only when administrative body lacks authority to grant relief)
- Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749 (U.S. 1975) (exhaustion prevents premature judicial interference and allows administrative correction of errors)