Transky v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission
951 N.E.2d 1106
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellants own and rent a home; FHRC conducted a July 2008 audit using a tester with an assistive animal and sought an additional $100 security deposit for the animal.
- FHRC filed a housing-discrimination charge with OCRC based on allegedly less favorable treatment during testing and questions about occupant relationships in their rental form.
- OCRC investigated, found probable cause, and filed an administrative complaint alleging multiple R.C. 4112.02 violations seeking broad relief.
- Appellants faced a choice between an administrative hearing and civil action; they elected to proceed administratively and later filed a separate complaint seeking declaratory relief.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, holding the administrative process provided adequate remedies and that defendants had absolute immunity.
- Appellants appeal, challenging the dismissal as to counts involving constitutional claims and immunity, and as to declaratory relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants have absolute immunity for counts 3 and 4. | Appellants contend Cordray and Tobocman acted quasi-judicially and not in a purely prosecutorial capacity. | The attorneys acted in a quasi-judicial/prosecutorial role during the administrative proceedings; they are absolutely immune. | Yes, counts 3 and 4 dismissed due to absolute immunity for those officials. |
| Whether declaratory/injunctive relief was appropriate given an adequate statutory remedy. | Appellants argue declaratory relief is needed to challenge constitutionality and is not adequately addressed by the administrative scheme. | R.C. 4112.05 and 4112.06 provide an adequate, exclusive path; declaratory relief would bypass the special statutory proceeding. | No; the trial court did not abuse discretion in dismissing declaratory relief as bypassing the administrative scheme. |
| Whether the IIED and §1983 claims should be dismissed as premature or improperly pleaded. | Plaintiffs allege federal rights violations and IIED arising from conspiratorial conduct in the course of administrative proceedings. | Claims are premature (for IIED) or fail to state §1983 conduct under color of state law. | Counts were properly dismissed under Civ.R. 12(B)(6) for insufficiency, though dissenters disagree on scope. |
Key Cases Cited
- Willitzer v. McCloud, 6 Ohio St.3d 447 (Ohio 1983) (prosecutors have absolute immunity when acting in a quasi-judicial capacity)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors performing intimately associated functions with judicial process)
- Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1978) (admin officers may have absolute immunity in analogous prosecutorial functions)
- Crawford v. Euclid Natl. Bank, 19 Ohio St.3d 135 (Ohio 1985) (elements for malicious civil prosecution under Ohio law)
- Whitehall v. Ohio Civ. Rights Comm., 74 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1995) (declaratory relief not available to bypass special statutory proceedings; time/expense do not render administrative remedy inadequate)
- Jones v. Chagrin Falls, 77 Ohio St.3d 456 (Ohio 1997) (exhaustion of administrative remedies is not jurisdictional; may still dismiss if appropriate)