Tuscarawas Ct.y Pub. Defender's Office v. Goudy
2021 Ohio 1754
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Tuscarawas County Public Defender’s Office (TCPD) hired Kristy Goudy as a classified secretary in 1996 and removed her in November 2018 for alleged misconduct (telephone policy violations, slamming a door, inappropriate comments, discussing an investigation).
- Goudy appealed to the State Personnel Board of Review (SPBR); an ALJ sustained three Group 1 offenses and recommended modifying removal to a 10‑day suspension based on progressive discipline and lack of prior evaluations.
- The SPBR adopted the ALJ’s recommendation on September 18, 2019. TCPD appealed to the Tuscarawas County Court of Common Pleas and the SPBR certified the record on October 30, 2019 but omitted the transcript for April 3, 2019 (the second day of a two‑day hearing).
- The omitted April 3 transcript was not transcribed or filed within 30 days; SPBR later acknowledged a clerical error and filed the transcript on February 6, 2020 after notifying the court by email but without first seeking a court extension.
- TCPD moved for judgment under R.C. 119.12(I) arguing the incomplete/untimely certified record required judgment in its favor without a showing of prejudice; the trial court denied relief, conducted briefing and hearing, and affirmed the SPBR order.
- The appellate court reversed: it held SPBR failed to prepare and certify a complete record within R.C. 119.12’s time limit (an omission beyond the Lorms/Arlow exceptions), found prejudice from the delay, and rendered judgment for TCPD, reinstating Goudy’s removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the agency timely prepared and certified a complete record under R.C. 119.12 | SPBR failed to certify a complete record (omitted April 3 transcript); where no complete record was certified within 30 days, judgment for TCPD is mandatory without showing prejudice | Omission was a clerical error/"mere omission," SPBR substantially complied and TCPD suffered no prejudice | Reversed trial court; omission went beyond a mere clerical error (Matash boundary); judgment entered for TCPD under R.C. 119.12 |
| Whether Goudy was guilty of insubordination for discussing an investigation | TCPD: evidence showed direct order was violated and insubordination justified removal | Goudy/SPBR: ALJ found insufficient evidence of insubordination; disciplined offenses were lesser | Moot—court did not reach merits after deciding first issue in favor of TCPD |
| Whether SPBR impermissibly required performance evaluations (extra‑statutory requirement) | TCPD: SPBR erred by relying on lack of performance evaluations to mitigate removal | Goudy/SPBR: progressive‑discipline analysis and lack of evaluations were proper factors | Moot—court found issue unnecessary after resolving the record‑certification issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Matash v. State, Dept. of Ins., 177 Ohio St. 55 (agency must prepare and certify complete record within statutory time; failure requires judgment for appellant)
- Lorms v. State Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Real Estate, 48 Ohio St.2d 153 (incomplete record does not automatically mandate judgment if omission is nonprejudicial)
- Arlow v. Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission, 24 Ohio St.3d 153 (timely certified record with minor errors/omissions does not require judgment absent prejudice)
- Gwinn v. Ohio Elections Comm., 187 Ohio App.3d 742 (discussing R.C. 119.12’s stringent record‑certification requirement)
- Binder v. Cuyahoga County, 161 Ohio St.3d 395 (statutory framework for civil‑service removals)