Wymsylo v. Bartec, Inc.
132 Ohio St. 3d 167
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Ballot initiative enacted Smoke Free Workplace Act (R.C. 3794) in 2006; enforcement assigned to Ohio Department of Health (ODH) with standards for public places and workplaces.
- Zeno’s Victorian Village, a private Columbus bar, received multiple violations under the Act; ODH issued ten proposed findings and fines; some violations were appealed while others were not.
- Trial court found ODH’s enforcement policy to be strict liability and beyond the statute’s scope, vacating ten citations; court also noted potential improper rulemaking.
- Ten violations were appealed to the Tenth District, which held the Act’s plain language required proprietors to take responsibility for conduct on premises and that appellants had waived as-applied challenges by not pursuing all administrative remedies.
- Ohio Supreme Court granted review to determine (1) whether ODH’s enforcement method violated separation of powers, (2) whether including bars as proprietors exceeded police power or amounted to a taking, and (3) whether declaratory judgment could provide relief; ultimately held the Act is a valid police-power measure and not a taking, with procedural exhaustion issues barring collateral challenges.
- The Court remanded with the conclusion that the ten violations were res judicata and affirmed the appellate judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ODH’s enforcement method violates separation of powers | Wymsylo argues unwritten strict-liability enforcement. | Bartec argues enforcement aligns with statutory authority. | As-applied separation-of-powers challenge waived; cannot be decided on appeal. |
| Whether inclusion of bars as proprietors exceeds police power or amounts to a taking | Inclusion of Zeno’s exceeds police power and constitutes a taking. | Statute rationally related to public health; no taking. | Act valid police power; no taking under Penn Cent. regulatory framework. |
| Whether declaratory judgment could be used to challenge constitutionality and collateral enforcement | Declaratory relief sought prospective relief against unlawful enforcement. | Declaratory judgment not proper to collaterally attack final administrative orders; exhaustion required. | Declaratory judgment barred as improper collateral attack; remedies exhausted or unavailable. |
| Whether ten final violations are subject to collateral attack or res judicata | Rules allow challenge to ongoing enforcement. | Final administrative orders are res judicata if not appealed. | Ten violations are res judicata; unresolved as-applied challenges cannot undo final orders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pour House, Inc. v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 185 Ohio App.3d 680 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2009) (case remand on whether бар violated 3794.02 based on 'permit smoking' standard)
- Deer Park Inn v. Ohio Dept. of Health, 185 Ohio App.3d 524 (Ohio App. 10th Dist. 2009) (upheld constitutional validity of act on face)
- Reading v. Pub. Util. Comm., 2006-Ohio-2181 (Ohio ne) (facial vs as-applied constitutional challenges)
- Karches v. Cincinnati, 38 Ohio St.3d 12 (1988) (declaratory relief available for constitutional challenges to regulations)
- Jaylin Invests., Inc. v. Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St.3d 339 (2006) (facial vs as-applied challenges standards)