2017 Ohio 2692
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Ronald P. Spitulski, a long‑time administrative employee of Toledo City School District, lost nearly a year of digitally recorded hearings and was the subject of multiple complaints about unprofessional conduct in 2012–2013.
- District supervisors Heather Baker and James Gault initiated disciplinary proceedings under the Board/TAAP collective bargaining agreement (CBA), including a continuing disciplinary investigation (CDI) and a hearing on the record.
- A hearing officer recommended termination; the Board issued notice under R.C. 3319.16, an independent referee later recommended against termination, but the Board terminated Spitulski anyway.
- Spitulski sued the Board, Baker, and Gault asserting claims including age discrimination, retaliation (R.C. 4112.02(I)), and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); several claims were dismissed on summary judgment, leaving those three.
- Trial court denied Baker and Gault statutory immunity under R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) as to the remaining claims; they appealed only the immunity ruling.
- The court of appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part: upheld denial of immunity for age discrimination and IIED claims, reversed denial of immunity for the retaliation claim, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) immunity is defeated for age discrimination claim | Spitulski: supervisors’ age‑related comments and conduct show malice/bad faith, creating fact issues | Gault/Baker: acted within job duties responding to complaints; conduct not malicious/bad faith | Immunity denied — question of fact exists whether malice/bad faith/wanton or reckless conduct occurred |
| Whether R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) immunity is defeated for retaliation claim | Spitulski: Board’s timing and conduct after OCRC charge suggests retaliation; causal link to supervisors | Gault/Baker: their involvement ended before protected activity or was routine; actions were within required statutory process | Immunity granted — no genuine issue on malice/bad faith/wanton or reckless conduct by Gault/Baker as to retaliation |
| Whether R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) immunity is defeated for IIED claim | Spitulski: alleged abuses of power and prosecutorial misconduct by supervisors show malice/bad faith/wanton or reckless conduct | Gault/Baker: merely gathered and reported complaints and followed procedure in good faith | Immunity denied — triable issue exists on whether supervisors acted with malice/bad faith/wanton or reckless conduct |
| Scope of R.C. 2744.09(B) argument (suit in official capacity) | Spitulski: suing in official capacity removes immunity | Gault/Baker: R.C. 2744.09(B) removes immunity only as to the political subdivision, not individual employees | Rejected — R.C. 2744.09(B) does not strip immunity from employees; prior Ohio precedents control |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Harless v. Willis Day Warehousing Co., 54 Ohio St.2d 64 (Ohio 1978) (requirements for summary judgment under Civ.R. 56)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (definition of material fact and summary judgment standards)
- Schoenfield v. Navarre, 164 Ohio App.3d 571 (Ohio App. 2005) (definitions and standards for malice, bad faith, wanton or reckless conduct in public‑employee immunity context)
- Jackson v. McDonald, 144 Ohio App.3d 301 (Ohio App. 2001) (R.C. 2744.03(A)(6) operates as a presumption of immunity)