State ex rel. Schroeder v. Cleveland (Slip Opinion), 150 Ohio St. 3d 135

12 Cleveland Fire Department officers (11 captains, 1 battalion chief) sought a writ of mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court to force the city to use competitive promotional examinations and to fill battalion-chief and assistant-chief vacancies from a competitive eligibility list (including retroactive promotions and back pay).
In March 2014 the city implemented a noncompetitive promotion process (resume + variable interview panels); several promotions occurred under that process without a competitive exam.
The firefighters’ union filed a declaratory-judgment and injunction action in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court challenging the noncompetitive process; that case sought declaratory relief, prohibitory injunctions, and sought mandamus relief in an amended pleading.
Relators moved to intervene in the union’s case but withdrew the motion after the trial court failed to rule on it (they contend the court sidelined them and scheduled mediation without them); relators then filed this original mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court majority held relators had an adequate remedy at law by intervening in the union’s case (and could have pursued procedendo or otherwise sought relief there), and therefore dismissed the mandamus action. A three-justice dissent would have granted the writ, reasoning intervention was not an adequate ordinary remedy and relators otherwise demonstrated a clear legal right and duty requiring competitive exams.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether relators had an adequate remedy at law that precludes mandamus	Intervention in the union's declaratory-injunction case was unavailable in practice (trial court failed to act) and thus relators lacked an adequate ordinary remedy	Relators could and should have intervened in the union's case (and could have sought procedendo); the union's suit sought equivalent relief	Majority: intervention in the pending common-pleas action was an adequate remedy, so mandamus is barred; Dissent: intervention/procedendo were not adequate ordinary remedies and mandamus should lie
Whether the city was required to use competitive promotional exams for battalion/assistant chiefs	City promotions violated Article XV, §10 and R.C. 124.45; competitive exams are mandatory and noncompetitive process violated civil service rules	City pursued a noncompetitive process; argued union litigation was the appropriate forum and procedural avenues existed there	Majority did not reach the substantive merits because mandamus was barred; Dissent: substantive law requires competitive exams and relators met burden for mandamus

State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 131 Ohio St.3d 55 (2012) (mandamus elements and clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)
State ex rel. Gilmour Realty, Inc. v. Mayfield Hts., 119 Ohio St.3d 11 (2008) (pending declaratory-judgment action may bar mandamus only if intervention is an adequate remedy)
State ex rel. N. Main St. Coalition v. Webb, 106 Ohio St.3d 437 (2005) (alternative remedy is adequate only if complete, beneficial, and speedy)
State ex rel. Gen. Motors Corp. v. Indus. Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 480 (2008) (declaratory judgment alone cannot compel official action; must be coupled with mandatory injunctive relief)
State ex rel. Johnson v. Cleveland Hts./Univ. Hts. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 73 Ohio St.3d 189 (1995) (failure to use an available adequate remedy precludes mandamus)
State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (availability of extraordinary remedies in common pleas court does not automatically bar original mandamus jurisdiction)