State ex rel. Sales v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (Slip Opinion), 128 N.E.3d 216

Gary N. Sales, a board-certified psychiatrist, worked at Lorain Correctional Institution under a series of written "Personal Service" contracts from 1997 until February 2003 that labeled him an "Independent Contractor."
Contracts set hourly rates, limited hours, required Sales to submit invoices for payment, and excluded him from fringe benefits, workers' compensation, and payroll.
Sales requested OPERS membership and service credit in 2014; OPERS denied the request based on contract terms, tax reporting (1099), lack of benefits, and lack of employer control over clinical decisions.
A hearing examiner and the OPERS board found Sales was an independent contractor; Sales sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District Court of Appeals.
The court of appeals (2–1) granted the writ, finding indicia of employment (badge, time clock, training, scheduling, adherence to ODRC policies). OPERS and ODRC appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding OPERS had "some evidence" supporting its conclusion that Sales was an independent contractor and denied the writ.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Sales was a "public employee" eligible for OPERS membership or an independent contractor excluded from membership	Sales: institutional controls (badge, clock-in/out, required training, scheduling, use of facility equipment, adherence to ODRC policies) show an employer–employee relationship	OPERS/ODRC: contract language, invoice-based payment, 1099 reporting, ineligibility for benefits/workers' comp, and clinical independence show independent-contractor status; security rules reflect institutional safety, not control of professional duties	Held: OPERS did not abuse its discretion; there was "some evidence" supporting the independent-contractor determination, so no mandamus relief
Applicable standard of review for OPERS decisions	Sales: (implicitly) OPERS erred as a matter of law in weighing indicia of employment	OPERS: decision reviewed for abuse of discretion; only absence of any supporting evidence warrants mandamus	Held: Standard is abuse of discretion ("some evidence" suffices); OPERS decision was supported by some evidence and not unreasonable

State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (2002) (mandamus available to correct administrative abuse when no statutory appeal)
State ex rel. Cydrus v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 127 Ohio St.3d 257 (2010) (mandamus to review OPERS eligibility decisions)
State ex rel. Hughes v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 36 Ohio St.3d 11 (1988) (mandamus appropriate to correct OPERS abuse of discretion)
State ex rel. Shisler v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 122 Ohio St.3d 148 (2009) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
State ex rel. Nese v. State Teachers’ Retirement Bd. of Ohio, 136 Ohio St.3d 103 (2013) (OPERS board abuses discretion if order not supported by some evidence)
State ex rel. Schaengold v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys., 114 Ohio St.3d 147 (2007) (OPERS may weigh regulatory factors to distinguish independent contractor from contract employee)
State ex rel. Ingold v. Ormet Corp., 39 Ohio St.3d 353 (1988) (factfinding and evidence-weighting lie with the agency)
State ex rel. Frigidaire Div., Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 35 Ohio St.3d 105 (1988) (same)