Wright State Univ. v. Fraternal Order of Police
2017 Ohio 854
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Wright State University (WSU) fired Sergeant Marcus Wyatt for providing an untrue explanation about a co‑worker’s late arrival; termination followed an internal investigation and due‑process meeting.
- Wyatt and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) submitted the dispute to binding arbitration under the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA).
- The arbitrator found just cause to discipline Wyatt for dishonesty but concluded termination was not warranted; he reduced the penalty to a written warning and ordered reinstatement with full benefits.
- WSU filed in common pleas court to vacate the award, arguing the arbitrator exceeded his authority, improperly limited testimony, and that reinstatement violated Ohio public policy for police honesty.
- The trial court denied vacation; the appellate court affirmed, finding the arbitrator acted within his authority and the remedy did not violate public policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether arbitrator exceeded authority by modifying discipline | Once arbitrator found just cause for the offense, CBA reserves discipline to WSU and prohibits substituting arbitrator’s discretion for the university’s | Arbitrator may assess both existence of just cause and appropriateness of discipline where CBA is silent on "just cause" definition; no express limitation preventing review | Arbitrator did not exceed authority; award "draws its essence" from the CBA and modification was within allowable review |
| Whether exclusion/limitation of witness and expert testimony required vacatur | Arbitrator improperly limited Kempf’s testimony and excluded expert on officer honesty/Brady issues, warranting vacatur | Arbitrator has broad discretion over evidence in arbitration; exclusions were either irrelevant or adequately addressed in briefing/exhibits | No gross procedural impropriety; exclusion did not require vacatur |
| Whether reinstatement violates Ohio public policy for police honesty | Reinstating a police officer who lied on duty conflicts with well‑defined public policy requiring higher honesty/integrity standards for officers | Public‑policy exception applies only when award itself violates a clear legal precedent; parties bargained for arbitral review and just‑cause protections | Reinstatement does not violate a well‑defined dominant public policy; award enforceable |
Key Cases Cited
- Queen City Lodge No. 69, Fraternal Order of Police v. Cincinnati, 842 N.E.2d 588 (appellate court standard that award must "draw its essence" from the CBA)
- Southwest Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth. v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 742 N.E.2d 630 (public policy limits on enforcing arbitration awards)
- W.R. Grace & Co. v. Local Union 759, 461 U.S. 757 (public‑policy exception to enforcement of arbitration awards)
- Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Assn., 47 N.E.3d 904 (arbitrator may review appropriateness of discipline absent express CBA limitation)
- Bordonaro v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 805 N.E.2d 1138 (evidentiary exclusions in arbitration may require vacatur only for gross procedural impropriety)