2017 Ohio 660
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- James Warren and John Mullin filed a putative class action claiming the Ohio BWC failed to adjust the statewide average weekly wage (SAWW) as required by R.C. 4123.62(C) for various years (initially 2008 and 2010; later adding 2009, 2011, 2012, 2014).
- The case was transferred to Franklin County; plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and the BWC cross-moved.
- The trial court granted the BWC’s motion and denied plaintiffs’ motion, concluding the BWC’s rounding method complied with R.C. 4123.62(C).
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the phrase “next higher even multiple of one dollar” requires rounding up to the next even (i.e., divisible by two) dollar amount and that BWC’s interpretation allowed odd dollar rounding.
- The BWC argued the phrase means rounding up to the next whole dollar (the next higher dollar amount), and that “even” modifies precision (i.e., an exact whole dollar), not parity.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the BWC’s interpretation reasonable and consistent with legislative intent and summary judgment properly granted for the BWC.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Meaning of “next higher even multiple of one dollar” in R.C. 4123.62(C) | “Even” requires the next higher dollar amount divisible by two (parity); thus BWC must round up to the next even dollar | “Even” means an exact/whole dollar (precision), so statute requires rounding up to the next whole dollar amount irrespective of parity | Court held BWC’s interpretation reasonable: “even” denotes precision (next whole dollar), not parity; BWC complied |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonacorsi v. Wheeling & Lake Erie Ry. Co., 95 Ohio St.3d 314 (2002) (standard of appellate de novo review for summary judgment)
- Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312 (1944) (apply unambiguous statutes as written)
- State ex rel. Clark v. Great Lakes Constr. Co., 99 Ohio St.3d 320 (2003) (deference to agency statutory interpretation unless unreasonable)
- Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Conrad, 92 Ohio St.3d 282 (agency interpretation principles)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party’s burden under Civ.R. 56)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (summary judgment response requirements)
- State ex rel. Grady v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 78 Ohio St.3d 181 (1997) (summary judgment standard)
- State v. Porterfield, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 (2005) (avoid construing statutes as ambiguous when plain meaning exists)
- Akron City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Revision, 139 Ohio St.3d 92 (2014) (statutory construction is question of law)