2019 Ohio 278
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Sherman retired from OPERS in 2009, then was reemployed part-time in 2010 by RITA, an OPERS-covered employer.
- OPERS withheld $74/month from Sherman's OPERS health-insurance premium subsidy in 2016–2017 because he was reemployed in an OPERS-covered position; similarly situated retirees reemployed in non-OPERS positions did not have the reduction.
- Sherman sued under the Ohio Constitution’s Equal Protection guarantee, seeking class certification, declaratory relief, and restitution for withheld subsidy amounts (C.P. No. 17CV-6815).
- OPERS moved to dismiss under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), arguing the classification deters "double-dipping" and preserves public funds—a rational basis for differential treatment.
- The trial court granted dismissal, ruling (1) public- and private- reemployed retirees are not similarly situated and (2) OPERS provided a rational basis; Sherman appealed.
- The appellate court reversed, holding Sherman plausibly pleaded that the groups are similarly situated and that OPERS failed on the motion record to show a rational-basis link between the subsidy reduction and a legitimate fiscal purpose.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPERS retirees reemployed in OPERS-covered positions are similarly situated to retirees reemployed in non-OPERS positions | Sherman: both groups are retirees who need coverage and receive OPERS pensions; no Ohio policy prohibits returning to public employment, so they are similarly situated | OPERS: public reemployment yields a second source of taxpayer-funded compensation; legislature distinguishes to deter double-dipping and protect fisc | Court: groups are similarly situated for equal protection purposes because Ohio law does not bar reemployment and the mere combination of pension+salary is not a relevant distinguishing trait |
| Whether OPERS's subsidy-reduction classification survives rational-basis review on a 12(B)(6) record | Sherman: Ohio has no policy prohibiting double-dipping; OPERS provided no factual or legal link showing the subsidy reduction furthers a legitimate government interest in a non-arbitrary way | OPERS: reducing subsidy for publicly reemployed retirees serves legitimate fiscal interests and administrative feasibility | Court: dismissal was improper because OPERS did not adequately explain how the classification reasonably furthers its stated interest; Sherman must negate conceivable bases only after OPERS supplies a plausible link |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Brien v. Univ. Community Tenants Union, Inc., 42 Ohio St.2d 242 (standards for Civ.R. 12(B)(6) review)
- Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co., 40 Ohio St.3d 190 (construe complaint in plaintiff's favor on motion to dismiss)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (rational-basis standard and presumption of validity for non-suspect classifications)
- Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors, Central State Univ. Chapter v. Central State Univ., 87 Ohio St.3d 55 (rational-basis review on pleadings)
- Harsco Corp. v. Tracy, 86 Ohio St.3d 189 (equal protection forbids treating alike persons differently in all relevant respects)
- MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Limbach, 68 Ohio St.3d 195 (relevance of classification distinctions in equal protection analysis)
- Roseman v. Firemen & Policemen's Death Benefit Fund, 66 Ohio St.3d 443 (preserving state money can be legitimate governmental purpose)
- Adamsky v. Buckeye Local School Dist., 73 Ohio St.3d 360 (arbitrary treatment in the name of saving money fails rational-basis review)
- State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 112 Ohio St.3d 561 (pleading standard: dismissal inappropriate when movant fails to show beyond doubt plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling relief)