State ex rel. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn. v. Warren (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 5372

Warren City Council passed a 2014 authorized-strength ordinance reducing upper-rank police positions (captains, lieutenants, sergeants) "by means of attrition," i.e., abolishing specified positions upon the incumbents' retirement.
In Dec. 2014 and Jan. 2015 a captain and a lieutenant retired; the city treated those positions as abolished under the ordinance and did not promote from the next lower ranks or hold promotional exams.
Five officers represented by the Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association sought a writ of mandamus compelling promotions (or promotional exams) and compensatory relief (including back pay and seniority-related benefits) under state civil-service law (R.C. Chapter 124).
The Eleventh District initially granted partial summary judgment for the officers, but on remand a reconstituted panel granted the city’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the petition.
The Ohio Supreme Court reviewed de novo whether R.C. 124.44 (promotion upon a vacancy) and R.C. 124.37 (demotion/layoff procedure when positions are abolished) prohibit abolishment of upper-rank positions by prospective attrition and affirmed the appellate court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retirements created vacancies requiring promotion under R.C. 124.44	The retirements automatically created vacancies that R.C. 124.44 mandates be filled by promotion (and exams) before any abolishment.	The ordinance deauthorized the positions prospectively, so no vacancy arose at retirement and R.C. 124.44 did not require promotion.	Court held no vacancy occurred because the valid ordinance had already disestablished the positions; R.C. 124.44 did not require promotions.
Whether R.C. 124.37 requires demotion/layoff whenever authorized strength is reduced (i.e., prohibits abolishment by attrition)	R.C. 124.37’s "shall" language requires demotion/layoff whenever an upper-rank position is abolished, so attrition that prevents a vacancy improperly circumvents the statute.	R.C. 124.37 prescribes order of demotions/layoffs when reductions become necessary, but does not forbid a lawful prospective abolition that results in no incumbent to demote; the statute applies only when an incumbent exists.	Court held R.C. 124.37 does not categorically prohibit prospective abolishment by attrition; it governs the required procedure when an incumbent position is abolished and a layoff/demotion becomes necessary.

Hungler v. Cincinnati, 25 Ohio St.3d 338 (invalidating a demotion/repromotion scheme that evaded R.C. 124.37 and affected promotions)
Zavisin v. Loveland, 44 Ohio St.3d 158 (vacancy occurs on retirement and R.C. 124.44’s promotion procedure is mandatory when a position is established and occupied)
State ex rel. Pell v. Westlake, 64 Ohio St.2d 360 (a newly created position is vacant if authorized by ordinance and funded)
State ex rel. Bednar v. N. Canton, 69 Ohio St.3d 278 (ordinance limiting force does not alone override mandatory promotion procedures under R.C. 124.44)