2025 Ohio 1233
Ohio2025Background
- Emily Johnston was hired as a teacher by the North Olmsted City School District for the 2018-2019 school year.
- Initially, she was offered a salary credit for ten years of teaching experience, subject to verification.
- The Board later recalculated her offer based on only six years of experience and she signed this second offer letter and corresponding contract.
- Johnston did not pursue the collective-bargaining agreement (CBA) grievance procedure regarding her salary placement, though she claims she informally sought correction.
- In May 2023, Johnston filed for a writ of mandamus seeking a higher salary (credit for 10 years) and backpay for the preceding five years.
- The Eighth District Court of Appeals dismissed her mandamus complaint, holding she had an adequate legal remedy under the CBA’s grievance procedure; she appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus is available when the CBA has a grievance procedure | The grievance procedure was inadequate for backpay and could not provide complete relief | Johnston had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law via the CBA grievance process | Mandamus denied; CBA grievance procedure is an adequate remedy |
| Whether relief under the grievance procedure could have covered past pay, not just prospective relief | The grievance process only covers prospective relief, not retrospective backpay | A timely grievance could have resolved the pay issue for all subsequent pay; failure to act does not make the remedy inadequate | Remedy was adequate as to all pay disputes if properly invoked |
| Whether Johnston’s claim was strictly statutory, allowing avoidance of the CBA grievance process | Statutes guaranteed her right to proper pay regardless of CBA procedure | The CBA (incorporating a salary schedule) governs and supplements statutory rights, including procedural grievance rights | CBA governs; statutory claim does not supplant required grievance step |
| Whether late filing or missing grievance deadlines negated her right to relief | 25-day grievance window was unfairly short for new employees | Grievance could be filed with each paycheck for underpayment; repeated opportunities existed | Repeated opportunities existed; failure to file is Johnston’s, not a flaw in the remedy |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 71 Ohio St.3d 26 (1994) (formal grievance procedure under a CBA can be an adequate remedy at law, barring mandamus)
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland Hts./Univ. Hts. School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 301 (1995) (mandamus not available when grievance procedure addresses the disputed issue)
- Tapo v. Columbus Bd. of Edn., 31 Ohio St.3d 105 (1987) (mandamus appropriate where statutory rights not grievable under collective bargaining agreement)