State Ex Rel. Cochran v. Boardman Township Board of Trustees
196 Ohio App. 3d 185
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Relator Cochran, a Boardman Township police sergeant and OPBA member, sought mandamus to promote to lieutenant and back pay.
- Promotional exam Dec 11, 2008 produced an eligibility list; Cochran was top scorer; list expired Jan 21, 2011.
- May 19, 2010 promotions filled two lieutenant positions with McDonnell and Riwniak; Cochran not promoted.
- CBA Article 18 governs promotions; it contemplates baseline rank structure and later civil service rules, but is silent on pre-baseline procedures.
- Cochran argued Rule VIII §9 gives him a clear right to promotion; respondents argued no duty under RC 505.49(C).
- Court denied Cochran’s summary-judgment motion, granted summary judgment for trustees and OPBA, and denied mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cochran has a clear legal right to promotion | Cochran based on Rule VIII §9 and top score entitlement | Trustees may promote any of top three per RC 505.49(C) | No clear legal right; discretionary under statute |
| Whether the CBA provides an adequate remedy precluding mandamus | CBA silent on pre-baseline promotions; mandamus appropriate | Grievance/arbitration procedure suffices; mandamus barred | CBA does not provide adequate remedy because it lacks applicable promotion procedure before baseline |
| Whether Cochran’s disability retirement moots the action | Back pay potential keeps case live | Disability retirement moots relief | Not moot; back pay potential keeps enforceability |
| Whether RC 505.49(C)(3) allows promotion of any top-three scorer in urban townships | Top scorer should be promoted under Rule VIII | Board has discretion to choose among top three | Board had discretion; not required to promote Cochran |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Walker v. Lancaster City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 79 Ohio St.3d 216 (1997) (grievance/arbitration not always adequate remedy for mandamus)
- State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 75 Ohio St.3d 447 (1996) (mandamus elements and burden on relator)
- State ex rel. Bednar v. N. Canton, 69 Ohio St.3d 278 (1994) (back pay standard in wrongful failure to promote mandamus)
- Dorrian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 27 Ohio St.2d 102 (1971) (statutory use of 'may' is discretionary; no mandamus for discretionary act)
- State ex rel. Batavia Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Batavia (School Dist.), 89 Ohio St.3d 191 (2000) (CBAs don’t bar mandamus when enforcing statutory rights)