2013 Ohio 374
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Relator is the exclusive representative for Cleveland's construction equipment operators; Milum, a relator member, was discharged by the City of Cleveland.
- Relator seeks a writ of mandamus to compel a neutral referee hearing on Milum's discharge.
- Milum was a temporary appointee; post-test eligibility determined his fate under civil service rules and the city charter.
- Milum ranked 10th (Class A) and 13th (Class B) on the competitive exams; the city instead appointed the second-ranked candidate to Class A.
- Discharge notices and pre-disciplinary conferences occurred in 2012; rescission of the discharge occurred, and a later commission hearing was held, but Milum and relator did not attend; the commission denied a disciplinary hearing request.
- The trial court granted the city’s summary judgment; the writ was denied; relator’s dispositive motion was denied.
- This appeal resolves whether relator had a right to a hearing before a neutral referee and whether mandamus was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator has a clear right to a neutral-referee hearing | Milum's discharge warrants a disciplinary hearing | Milum was a temporary appointee; selection from top three required | No; no clear right to a neutral referee per facts and rules. |
| Whether respondent had a duty to provide a disciplinary hearing | Identity of discharge requires hearing | Discharge based on eligibility ranking, not disciplinary action | No; the discharge based on eligibility ranking did not trigger a disciplinary hearing. |
| Whether relator had adequate remedy by ordinary appeal | Mandamus to compel hearing is necessary | Relator had an adequate remedy through ordinary appellate channels | No; Henderson/Lane show collateral attack barred due to available remedies. |
| Whether the commission's actions preserved proper procedures | Commission failed to follow rules 9.20/9.22 | Actions complied with applicable rules and charter | Yes; actions were consistent with rules and charter. |
| Whether Milum or relator attended the hearing to preserve rights | Attendance was needed to preserve rights | Attendance not required to preserve rights given prior steps | Attendance not required; nonetheless relief denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson v. Maple Hts. Civ. Serv. Comm., 63 Ohio St.2d 39 (1980) (denial of jurisdiction bars mandamus when final appealable order available)
- Lane v. Pickerington, 130 Ohio St.3d 225 (2011) (no final order where board lacked jurisdiction; proper remedy exists)
- Jaffal v. Calabrese, 105 Ohio St.3d 440 (2005) (adequate remedy in ordinary course of law defeats mandamus)
- Stough v. Bd. of Edn., 50 Ohio St.2d 47 (1977) (collateral attack barred absent final appealable action)
- Bingham v. Riley, 6 Ohio St.2d 263 (1966) (illustrates collateral-attack limitations on mandamus)