State Ex Rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of Cleveland, 141 Ohio St. 3d 113

Background

Jeffrey Milum worked for Cleveland as a construction-equipment operator; after two successive appointments (Class A then temporary Class B) each lasting over 120 days, he was a nonprobationary classified employee under CCSC Rule 6.80.
The city administered competitive exams for Class A and Class B in March 2012; Milum ranked 10th on the Class A list and 13th on the Class B list.
On April 23, 2012, Milum was notified and then terminated; the department characterized the termination as required because a suitable eligible list had been established.
Milum requested a disciplinary hearing under Cleveland Civil Service Commission (CCSC) Rule 9.22 (hearing before a neutral referee); the commission secretary later scheduled a June 22 meeting but indicated it would permit only limited argument about reinstatement.
The commission voted on June 22 to deny Milum a Rule 9.22 hearing; Milum did not attend that meeting and did not appeal to R.C. 2506.01.
The Municipal Construction Equipment Operators’ Labor Council sought mandamus in the court of appeals to compel appointment of a Rule 9.22 referee; the Eighth District denied relief and this Court reversed, granting the writ.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Milum had a clear legal right to a Rule 9.22 disciplinary hearing	Milum, as nonprobationary employee discharged only for cause, had a right to challenge termination before a neutral referee under Rule 9.22	The discharge was nondisciplinary (removal due to establishment of an eligible list for temporary appointments), so Rule 9.22 did not apply	Held: Milum had a clear right to a Rule 9.22 hearing because he was a nonprobationary classified employee and could be discharged only for cause; characterization by employer does not eliminate that right
Whether the commission had a clear legal duty to appoint a referee	The commission was bound by its rules to appoint a referee and hold the Rule 9.22 hearing when demanded	The commission was required to remove him from a temporary appointment after an eligible list was established and thus had no duty to hold a disciplinary hearing	Held: The commission had a clear duty to appoint a referee and conduct the Rule 9.22 hearing; questions about whether complete discharge vs. reassignment was required should be addressed by the referee
Whether mandamus was barred because an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law existed (administrative appeal)	No adequate remedy existed because the commission’s denial of a Rule 9.22 hearing was not a quasi-judicial, appealable decision under R.C. 2506.01; Milum lacked notice and opportunity to present evidence at the June 22 meeting	The commission’s June 22 action was appealable and Milum failed to exhaust administrative remedies (and he failed to appear at the meeting to argue reinstatement)	Held: No adequate remedy existed; the June 22 proceeding was not quasi-judicial (lack of proper notice and evidentiary opportunity), so mandamus was appropriate
Whether Milum forfeited relief by not attending the June 22 meeting	The June 1 notice limited argument and did not fairly notify Milum that the commission would decide entitlement to a Rule 9.22 hearing; he was not required to pursue a non-existent administrative remedy	Milum abandoned the administrative process by not appearing and thus cannot use mandamus	Held: Milum was not required to pursue the limited proceeding; failure to attend did not preclude mandamus because the offered meeting was not an adequate administrative remedy

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Allen v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Elections, 115 Ohio St.3d 186 (standard for mandamus relief requirements)
State ex rel. Orange Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 135 Ohio St.3d 162 (clear-and-convincing proof standard for mandamus)
State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103 (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing denial of mandamus)
AT & T Communications of Ohio, Inc. v. Lynch, 132 Ohio St.3d 92 (definition of quasi-judicial proceeding for R.C. 2506.01 appeals)
State ex rel. Lorain v. Stewart, 119 Ohio St.3d 222 (agency action lacking required notice/hearing is not quasi-judicial)
State v. Mateo, 57 Ohio St.3d 50 (notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard are core due-process requirements)
State ex rel. Rieke v. Hausrod, 59 Ohio St.2d 48 (denial of a hearing request not necessarily a quasi-judicial, appealable decision)
State ex rel. Natl. Elec. Contrs. Assn. v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 83 Ohio St.3d 179 (no requirement to pursue administrative remedies when none exist)