2021 Ohio 2902
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- Congress enacted CARES Act unemployment programs (PUA, PEUC, FPUC). FPUC provided supplemental weekly payments and was available only through a limited period in 2021.
- Governor DeWine entered a CARES Act agreement for Ohio on March 28, 2020, then gave 30 days’ notice and terminated Ohio’s participation in FPUC effective June 26, 2021.
- Three unemployed Ohio residents sued the Governor and ODJFS Director seeking declaratory relief, mandamus, and a preliminary injunction to restore FPUC, relying on R.C. 4141.43(I) (requiring the Director to secure “all advantages available” under listed federal unemployment statutes).
- The trial court denied the preliminary injunction, concluding R.C. 4141.43(I) did not apply to FPUC but found appellants suffered irreparable harm; appellants appealed interlocutorily.
- The appellate majority held it had jurisdiction under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) (funds were time-limited so money damages would be inadequate), ruled that FPUC falls within the advantages R.C. 4141.43(I) requires the state to secure, and concluded the Governor’s termination unlawfully encroached on the legislature’s policy authority; the court reversed and remanded for further injunction-factor analysis.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 4141.43(I) requires the state to secure CARES Act FPUC benefits | R.C. 4141.43(I) mandates securing "all advantages available" under the listed federal statutes; CARES Act benefits (FPUC) fall within those statutes and definitions | The Ohio statute references specific federal statutes and does not incorporate CARES Act FPUC; FPUC is appropriated from the general Treasury, not routed through Social Security/Unemployment Trust Fund | Court: FPUC is encompassed by CARES Act definitions tied to the Federal-State Extended Unemployment Compensation Act/PUA/PEUC, so R.C. 4141.43(I) applies and the state must secure those advantages |
| Whether the Governor lawfully terminated Ohio’s participation or usurped legislative power (separation of powers) | Governor exceeded the General Assembly’s exclusive policy role; R.C. 4141.43(I) is a legislative mandate the executive cannot impair | Governor has constitutional executive authority to enter/terminate agreements and to execute laws; termination was within executive discretion under CARES Act 30‑day notice | Court: Governor’s termination encroached on the legislature’s reserved power to set employee-welfare policy and violated the mandate of R.C. 4141.43(I) |
| Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over interlocutory appeal of denial of preliminary injunction | Denial prevented meaningful relief because FPUC funds were time-limited and money damages would not remedy the immediate loss | Denied order is interlocutory; calculable monetary relief after final judgment would be adequate (so no appealable order) | Court: Jurisdiction exists under R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) because the funds were finite and later money relief would not make appellants whole |
| Remedy on appeal — should appellate court order injunction as matter of law? | Ask reversal and directed entry of injunction | Argue trial court discretion and additional injunction factors remain; remand appropriate | Court: Reversed trial court’s legal ruling (likelihood of success) but remanded so trial court can evaluate remaining injunction factors (third-party harm, public interest) before issuing relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. National Lime & Stone Co. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 152 Ohio St.3d 393 (2017) (principles for statutory interpretation; apply plain meaning and give effect to every clause)
- Danis Clarkco Landfill Co. v. Clark Cty. Solid Waste Mgt. Dist., 73 Ohio St.3d 590 (1995) (denial/grant of injunction reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (definition of abuse of discretion: unreasonable, arbitrary, unconscionable)
- Ohio Hosp. Assn. v. Ohio Dept. of Human Servs., 62 Ohio St.3d 97 (1991) (ordering reimbursement can be equitable relief, not mere money damages)
- In re D.H., 152 Ohio St.3d 310 (2018) (R.C. 2505.02(B)(4) analysis: whether appeal after final judgment would afford meaningful remedy)
- State v. Muncie, 91 Ohio St.3d 440 (2001) (discussing meaningful or effective remedy standard for interlocutory appeals)
- California Dept. of Human Resources Dev. v. Java, 402 U.S. 121 (1971) (statement of the purpose and public-policy rationale for unemployment compensation)
- Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988) (relief requiring payment of money by government can constitute equitable relief)