State ex rel. Tarrier v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 649

Background

Kathy Tarrier began work at the Franklin County Public Defender’s Office in 1987 and became a member of OPERS on January 1, 1999, without credit for pre‑1999 service.
When she first joined OPERS she was placed in the traditional defined‑benefit plan; in 2003 she timely elected to transfer to the combined plan under R.C. 145.191 (eligible members with <5 years as of Dec. 31, 2002).
After this court’s decision in Altman‑Bates (2016) the Retirement Board granted Tarrier pre‑1999 service credit and charged Franklin County under R.C. 145.483, but credited those delinquent contributions only to the defined‑benefit portion of the combined plan (not her individual DC account).
Tarrier asked the Board either to fund her individual account or to transfer her back to the traditional plan with full credit for pre‑1999 service; the Board denied relief.
Tarrier sought a writ of mandamus in the Tenth District to compel the Board to return her to the traditional plan; the court of appeals denied the writ. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Tarrier)	Defendant's Argument (Board)	Held
1. Whether Altman‑Bates required the Board to place Tarrier in the traditional plan	Altman‑Bates and the Board’s treatment of similarly situated employees created a legal right to be placed in the traditional plan	Altman‑Bates granted relief only to named relators and did not create a duty to place Tarrier in a different plan	Denied — Altman‑Bates did not obligate the Board to transfer Tarrier; law‑of‑the‑case doesn’t apply to a different proceeding and the court cannot create a statutory duty
2. Whether R.C. 145.11 fiduciary duties required the Board to transfer Tarrier or otherwise fund her DC account	The Board breached statutory fiduciary duties (breach of fiduciary duty argument) by not funding her individual account or moving her to traditional plan	R.C. 145.11 imposes a general fiduciary duty to manage funds prudently but does not create a duty to transfer a participant between plans	Denied — no clear statutory duty under R.C. 145.11 to effect the requested transfer; mandamus requires a clear legal duty
3. Whether Tarrier’s 2003 election was invalid because retroactive service made her have ≥5 years as of Dec. 31, 2002	Retroactive credit for pre‑1999 service means she had ≥5 years and could not validly elect to leave traditional plan in 2003	The election was valid when made; R.C. 145.191 uses the participant’s status "as of Dec. 31, 2002," and the election was irrevocable except as provided by statute	Denied — election was permissible when made and irrevocable; post‑2002 credits do not retroactively void the election
4. Whether the Supreme Court or court of appeals has original jurisdiction over Tarrier’s asserted common‑law torts (breach of fiduciary duty, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, conversion)	Tarrier characterizes Board conduct as common‑law torts and seeks relief here	Courts lack original jurisdiction over ordinary common‑law tort claims; Tarrier also failed to plead those claims in her complaint	Denied — the claims were not pleaded and the courts lack original jurisdiction to entertain them in mandamus proceedings

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. Altman‑Bates v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 148 Ohio St.3d 21 (Ohio 2016) (ordered relief for named relators and is the decision that prompted the Board to grant pre‑1999 credit to similarly situated employees)
State ex rel. Mallory v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 82 Ohio St.3d 235 (Ohio 1998) (held certain pre‑1985 hires were public employees and entitled to service credit)
State ex rel. Davis v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 120 Ohio St.3d 386 (Ohio 2008) (directed the Board to adjudicate pre‑1999 credit claims on the merits)
State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 99 Ohio St.3d 430 (Ohio 2003) (relevant to Board’s earlier handling of claim denials)
State ex rel. Domhoff v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. Bd., 140 Ohio St.3d 284 (Ohio 2014) (mandamus requires clear right, clear duty, and lack of adequate remedy; relief where Board abused discretion)
State ex rel. Perry Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Husted, 154 Ohio St.3d 174 (Ohio 2018) (court cannot create a statutory duty enforceable in mandamus)
State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327 (Ohio 2002) (absence of an appeal to the Board can show lack of adequate remedy at law)
State ex rel. Ullmann v. Klein, 160 Ohio St.3d 457 (Ohio 2020) (refusal to consider claims not pleaded in the relator’s complaint)