2014 Ohio 4364
Ohio2014Background
- Jeffrey Milum worked for Cleveland as a construction-equipment operator: initially Class A (Dec 2009–Feb 2011), then as a temporary Class B (Feb 2011–Apr 2012).
- In March 2012 Cleveland administered civil-service exams and created eligibility lists; Milum ranked outside the top-three for the positions he held.
- On April 23, 2012 Milum received a predisciplinary notice; at that meeting he was immediately terminated and demanded a Rule 9.22 disciplinary hearing before a neutral referee.
- The Civil Service Commission later rescinded the first termination letter, said Milum was discharged due to exam ranking, and scheduled a June 22 meeting where Milum could "further argue" for reinstatement.
- Milum filed a mandamus action seeking to compel appointment of a Rule 9.22 referee; the commission denied the hearing at the June meeting (Milum and counsel did not attend) and the Eighth District denied the writ.
- The Ohio Supreme Court reversed: it held Milum (a nonprobationary employee under CCSC Rule 6.80) had a clear right to a Rule 9.22 hearing, the commission had a duty to appoint a referee, and Milum lacked an adequate remedy at law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Milum had a clear legal right to a Rule 9.22 disciplinary hearing | Milum was nonprobationary and thus could be discharged only for cause; he therefore had a right to a Rule 9.22 hearing to challenge discharge | City argued discharge was nondisciplinary (ineligibility after list posted) so Rules 9.20/9.22 did not apply | Held: Milum had a clear right — Rule 6.80 made him subject to discharge only for cause and entitled him to Rule 9.22 process |
| Whether the commission had a clear legal duty to appoint a neutral referee and hold a Rule 9.22 hearing | Commission must follow its rules and appoint a referee when discharge follows predisciplinary procedure resulting in termination | City claimed rule language requiring removal of temporary appointees after list establishment dictated discharge, not a hearing | Held: Commission had duty to appoint a referee and let a referee resolve legal/factual questions about proper remedy |
| Whether Milum had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law (i.e., could have appealed the commission's denial) | Mandamus proper because the commission’s denial of a Rule 9.22 hearing was not an appealable quasi‑judicial final order under R.C. 2506.01 | City argued the June 22 decision was appealable and Milum failed to pursue an administrative appeal | Held: Commission’s denial was not a quasi‑judicial, appealable proceeding (lack of required notice/hearing/evidence), so no adequate remedy existed |
| Whether Milum waived administrative remedy by not attending June 22 meeting | Milum could not reasonably expect to be allowed to present evidence at June 22 given the limited notice; he was not required to pursue a non‑existent remedy | City/commission criticized Milum for failing to appear and argue reinstatement at June 22 | Held: Milum was not required to exhaust because the offered proceeding was not a meaningful administrative remedy; mandamus appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186 (2007) (mandamus elements: clear right, clear duty, no adequate remedy)
- State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 135 Ohio St.3d 162 (2013) (mandamus standard; clear-and-convincing burden)
- State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103 (2013) (abuse-of-discretion review of appellate denial of mandamus)
- AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, 132 Ohio St.3d 92 (2012) (R.C. 2506.01 requires proceedings that afford notice, hearing, and opportunity to introduce evidence)
- State ex rel. Lorain v. Stewart, 119 Ohio St.3d 222 (2008) (example of non‑quasi‑judicial administrative action not appealable)
- State v. Mateo, 57 Ohio St.3d 50 (1991) (due process requires notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard)
- State ex rel. Rieke v. Hausrod, 59 Ohio St.2d 48 (1979) (denial of non‑statutorily required hearing does not create appealable quasi‑judicial order)
- M.J. Kelley Co. v. Cleveland, 32 Ohio St.2d 150 (1972) (when law does not require notice/hearing/opportunity to present evidence, proceedings are not quasi‑judicial)