State ex rel. Pruce v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Bd.
2018 Ohio 713
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Deborah Pruce worked as a Help Me Grow service coordinator/home visitor for Geauga County JFS from April 15, 2002 to January 31, 2009 under successive annual written contracts that labeled her a “contractor.”
- Contracts/Plans of Operation set hourly rates, required invoices/1099 reporting, disclaimed employee benefits, required professional-liability insurance, allowed limited subcontracting with JFS approval, and provided that JFS would furnish office space, equipment, and some supplies.
- Pruce submitted OPERS forms in 2013–2014 seeking a membership determination; OPERS staff and senior staff found she was an independent contractor and not eligible for OPERS membership for the period at issue.
- Pruce administratively appealed; a hearing was held in January 2015; the hearing examiner issued a Report & Recommendation (R&R) finding independent‑contractor status based on the regulatory factors.
- No party filed objections to the R&R; OPERS adopted the R&R at its December 16, 2015 meeting. Pruce then filed this mandamus action seeking to compel OPERS to treat her as a public employee for the period.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OPERS abused its discretion by classifying Pruce as an independent contractor (thus excluding her from membership) | Pruce: OPERS lacked "some evidence" to support finding she satisfied key regulatory elements (especially control and provision of supplies/assistants) | OPERS: Contracts, 1099s, lack of payroll/benefits, billing/invoicing practice, and supervisory evidence support independent-contractor status | Court: No abuse of discretion; OPERS decision affirmed |
| Whether all eight regulatory elements in OAC 145-1-42(A)(2) must be met to find independent-contractor status | Pruce: Interpretation requires satisfaction of all elements (or at least that OPERS show each contested element by some evidence) | OPERS: Adjudicator must review listed elements but need not find every element satisfied; elements are not equally weighted | Court: The rule does not require all elements to be met; OPERS reasonably reviewed elements and relied on some as determinative |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Burrows v. Indus. Comm., 78 Ohio St.3d 78 (1997) (clear-statement/plain-meaning rule for unambiguous statutes)
- State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103 (2013) (control/supervision comparison between employees and contractors is relevant to membership determinations)