2015 Ohio 3721
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- David Slusser, Chief of Police for Celina, was placed on administrative leave (Feb 14, 2013) and terminated (June 13, 2013); he appealed to the Celina Civil Service Commission (CCSC).
- CCSC adopted a hearing officer’s recommendation and issued final orders terminating Slusser on August 11, 2014.
- Slusser filed a notice of appeal with the CCSC on August 26, 2014 and filed a “Complaint on Appeal” in Mercer County Common Pleas Court on September 17, 2014 seeking de novo review and reinstatement.
- The City moved to dismiss, arguing Slusser failed to file his appeal with the common pleas court within 30 days of the commission’s decision and thus the appeal was untimely.
- The trial court dismissed the appeal as untimely under Ohio law; Slusser appealed, arguing R.C. 2505.04 perfected his appeal by filing with the commission within 30 days and filing with the common pleas court was not jurisdictional.
- The Third District reversed, holding R.C. 2505.04 controls perfection of administrative appeals and a timely filing with the commission satisfied the jurisdictional requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an R.C. 124.34(C) appeal must be filed with the common pleas court within 30 days to be perfected | Slusser: R.C. 2505.04 governs perfection; filing timely with the commission perfects the appeal and subsequent filing in common pleas is not jurisdictional | City: R.C. 119.12 (or common practice) requires filing the notice with both the agency and the court within the statutory period | Held for Slusser: R.C. 2505.04 means an administrative appeal is perfected when filed with the commission; filing in common pleas within 30 days is not jurisdictional |
| Whether R.C. 119.12 governs filing procedure for municipal civil service appeals under R.C. 124.34(C) | Slusser: R.C. 119.12 is not controlling for R.C. 124.34(C) appeals | City: R.C. 119.12 provides the proper filing rule and fills gaps in R.C. 124.34(C) | Held: R.C. 119.12 does not mandate filing in R.C. 124.34(C) appeals; legislature omitted 119.12 from 124.34(C) intentionally |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction | Slusser: Dismissal improper because appeal was perfected under 2505.04 | City: Dismissal proper because appellant failed to file with common pleas timely | Held: Dismissal reversed; appeal was perfected and dismissal for untimeliness was improper |
| Proper procedural route for R.C. 124.34(C) appeals (Chapters implicated) | Slusser: Appeals implicate R.C. Chapters 2505/2506 procedures per 2505.04 | City: Rely on 119.12 practice; common-sense requirement to file with court too | Held: R.C. 2505.04/2506 framework applies; 2505.04’s perfection rule controls |
Key Cases Cited
- Westlake Civ. Serv. Comm. v. Pietrick, 142 Ohio St.3d 495 (Ohio 2015) (distinguishes R.C. 124.34(C) appeals and discusses standard/scope of review)
- Welsh Dev. Co. v. Warren Cty. Regional Planning Comm., 128 Ohio St.3d 471 (Ohio 2011) (clarifies one method for perfecting an administrative appeal under R.C. 2505.04)
- Jacobs v. Marion Civ. Serv. Com’n, 27 Ohio App.3d 194 (Ohio Ct. App.) (holds municipal civil service commission appeals are not typically governed by R.C. 119)
- Beare v. Eaton, 9 Ohio App.3d 142 (Ohio Ct. App.) (supports availability of R.C. 2505/2506 appellate route for municipal civil service appeals)