2020 Ohio 4931
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Craig A. Jones was Dayton Public Schools’ treasurer under a three‑year contract ending July 31, 2016; the Board voted at a February 2016 special meeting not to renew his contract.
- Jones sued, alleging the Board violated R.C. 3313.16 and the Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22); this court previously reversed summary judgment in favor of the Board, holding the meeting notice violated R.C. 121.22(F).
- On remand the magistrate awarded Jones one year’s pay plus standard SERS contributions; the trial court increased the award to include an annuity and extra SERS “pickup,” but denied attorney fees.
- Jones appealed (arguing he was entitled to multi‑year reemployment and attorney fees); the Board cross‑appealed (challenging inclusion of annuity and extra SERS pickup as “increments”).
- The appellate court affirmed that reemployment by operation of law is limited to one year, held the trial court abused its discretion in denying attorney fees under R.C. 121.22(I), and held the annuity/extra SERS pickup are not recoverable as “increments.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope/term of automatic reemployment under R.C. 3313.22(A) | Jones: reemployment by operation of law for 2016–17 should continue into subsequent years absent later non‑renewal notices (so he is owed 3 years). | Board: no written contract was executed for 2016–17; a non‑existent contract cannot expire, so March notice duty never arose. | The statute is unambiguous: reemployment by operation of law is for one year only. Jones’s multi‑year claim was denied. |
| Award of attorney fees under R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a) (Open Meetings Act violation) | Jones: Board violated R.C.121.22(F); injunction/finding require award of court costs and reasonable attorney fees unless both statutory prongs justify reduction/denial. | Board: trial court correctly found the two prongs applied (well‑informed body reasonably would believe it was not violating the law and was serving public policy) and thus fees could be reduced/denied. | Majority: trial court abused its discretion in denying fees — neither prong applied on the record; attorney fees must be awarded; case remanded to determine reasonable fees. (One judge dissented on this point.) |
| Meaning of “increments” in R.C. 3313.22(A) | Jones: “increments” and back‑pay should make him whole, including annuity and contractual extra SERS pickup. | Board: “increments” means salary increases only; recoverable benefits are salary plus standard employer SERS contribution (14%). | “Increments” limited to salary increases (e.g., schedule adjustments); annuity and extra SERS pickup are not statutorily recoverable. The trial court erred by awarding those amounts; remanded to conform damages to statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Jones v. Bd. of Edn. of Dayton Pub. Schools, 96 N.E.3d 333 (2d Dist. 2018) (prior appellate decision finding notice violated R.C. 121.22(F) and reversing summary judgment)
- White v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 667 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio 1996) (awarding attorney fees under the Open Meetings Act and discussing reduction factors)
- State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 829 N.E.2d 298 (Ohio 2005) (discussing back‑pay/remedy principles in employment disputes)
- State ex rel. Cincinnati Enquirer v. Pike Cty. Coroner's Office, 101 N.E.3d 396 (Ohio 2017) (emphasizing liberal construction and public‑access principles of R.C. 121.22)
- Keystone Commt. v. Switzerland of Ohio Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 67 N.E.3d 1 (7th Dist. 2016) (used for comparison on notice content and purpose)
- Maddox v. Greene Cty. Children Servs. Bd. of Dirs., 12 N.E.3d 476 (2d Dist. 2014) (standard of review for discretionary denial/reduction of attorney fees under R.C. 121.22)