Cassaro v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.Cassaro v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs.
Daniel H. Klos for Appellant
Eric A. Baum for Appellees
PRESTON, J.
{¶1} Claimant-appellant, Sean Cassaro (“Cassaro“), appeals the judgment of the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas affirming the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission‘s (“Commission“) determination disallowing Cassaro‘s request for unemployment compensation benefits. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
{¶2} Cassaro‘s employment as an engineering technician with the City of Bucyrus, Ohio (“City“) was terminated on October 6, 2014. (Doc. No. 23); (Doc. No. 12, Ex. A). After his employment was terminated, Cassaro filed for unemployment compensation benefits. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. A).
{¶3} On October 27, 2014, the Ohio Department of Job & Family Services (“ODJFS“) approved Cassaro‘s application for unemployment compensation benefits after concluding that, based on that application, Cassaro “was discharged without just cause under
{¶4} On December 23, 2014, the City‘s appeal was transferred to the Commission for review. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. B). After telephone hearings on January
{¶5} On May 12, 2015, Cassaro, pro se,1 appealed to the Crawford County Court of Common Pleas the Commission‘s denial of his request for review of its March 5, 2015 decision denying Cassaro‘s application for unemployment compensation benefits. (Doc. No. 1). Cassaro‘s appeal named as parties ODJFS, the Commission, Gregory Gantt, Sylvester Patton, Ed Good, Cynthia C. Dungey, and Joyce M. Schifer (collectively “appellees“). (Id.). On May 26, 2015, the Director of ODJFS requested that the trial court remove the Commission and its individual commissioners and members—Gregory Gantt, Sylvester Patton, and Ed Good—as parties to Cassaro‘s appeal, which was granted on July 23, 2015. (Doc. Nos. 11, 14).
{¶6} Appellees filed the administrative file on June 1, 2015. (Doc. No. 12). Cassaro filed his brief on August 27, 2015. (Doc. No. 17). Appellees filed their brief on October 7, 2015. (Doc. No. 19). Cassaro filed his reply brief on October 30, 2015. (Doc. No. 21).
{¶8} Cassaro filed his notice of appeal on June 3, 2016. (Doc. No. 25). He raises one assignment of error for our review.
Assignment of Error
The Common Pleas Court committed reversible error when it affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that found Mr. Cassaro was terminated with good cause.
{¶9} In his assignment of error, Cassaro argues that the trial court erred by affirming the Commission‘s decision denying his application for unemployment compensation benefits because there is no “reliable, probative, and substantial evidence” supporting the Commission‘s determination that Cassaro was terminated from his employment for “good cause.” (Appellant‘s Brief at 13).
{¶10}
{¶11} “A just-cause determination must be consistent with the legislative purpose underlying the Unemployment Compensation Act: to provide financial
{¶12} “Our appellate review of a denial of unemployment benefits is limited.” Clark at ¶ 6, citing Johnson v. SK Tech., Inc., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 23522, 2010-Ohio-3449, ¶ 18, citing Silkert v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 184 Ohio App.3d 78, 2009-Ohio-4399, ¶ 26 (2d Dist.). “A reviewing court may reverse a just-cause determination by the commission only if it is unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence.” Hicks at ¶ 13, citing
{¶13} Accordingly, the issue before us is whether the Commission‘s determination that the City discharged Cassaro for just cause is supported by some competent, credible evidence, or, conversely, whether it is unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. See Clark at ¶ 7. The Commission issued its decision on March 5, 2015 denying Cassaro‘s application for unemployment compensation benefits after concluding that Cassaro was discharged from his employment for just cause. (Doc. No. 12, Ex. B). The Commission found that Cassaro
advised a local contractor to fill a manhole with concrete without first conducting an inspection and reviewing city records. If [Cassaro] had exercised the due diligence required, he would have realized that the manhole was actually used for drainage and not an old coal bin. [Cassaro] was not truthful when the [City] questioned him about what he told the contractor. His failure to conduct the necessary inspection and untruthfulness cost the [City] $5,000.00.
{¶14} After reviewing the record, we conclude that there is some competent, credible evidence supporting the Commission‘s determination that Cassaro was discharged from his employment for just cause. See Hicks, 2014-Ohio-2735, at ¶ 34. That is, the Commission‘s determination that Cassaro was terminated from his employment for just cause was neither unlawful, unreasonable, nor against the manifest weight of the evidence. See id. at ¶ 36.
{¶15} “Just cause is conduct that would lead a person of ordinary intelligence to conclude the surrounding circumstances justified the employee‘s discharge.” Id. at ¶ 33, citing Chambers v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 06AP-1043, 2007-Ohio-1493, ¶ 7. “‘Traditionally, just cause, in the statutory sense, is that which, to an ordinarily intelligent person, is a justifiable reason for doing or not doing a particular act.‘” Clark at ¶ 7, quoting Irvine v. Unemp. Comp. Bd. of Review, 19 Ohio St.3d 15, 17 (1985). “Just cause for discharge exists where ‘“the employee, by his actions, demonstrated an unreasonable disregard for his employer‘s best interests.“‘” Hicks at ¶ 33, quoting Mayes v. Bd. of Review, Ohio Bur. of Emp. Servs., 32 Ohio App.3d 68 (10th Dist.1986), quoting Kiikka v. Ohio Bur. of Unemp. Servs., 21 Ohio App.3d 168, 169 (8th Dist.1985).
{¶16} “[N]umerous courts have found that lying to an employer or falsifying work-related records * * * may constitute just cause under
{¶17} The Commission conducted two telephone hearings on January 13, 2015 and February 9, 2015. At the January 13, 2015 hearing, Jeff Wagner (“Wagner“), the Service Safety Director for the City testified on behalf of the City. (Jan. 13, 2015 Tr. at 5, 8). He testified that he manages the employees of the City,
{¶18} First, Wagner testified that Cassaro was sent to inspect a sidewalk, which was being repaired by a local contractor. (Id. at 10). According to Wagner, Cassaro and the contractor discussed a manhole located on the sidewalk being repaired by the contractor. (Id.). Wagner testified that Cassaro and the contractor looked in the manhole, and, without checking any records, Cassaro indicated to the contractor that the manhole was “an old coal bin” and instructed the contractor to fill in the manhole with concrete and stone. (Id. at 10-11, 12). After a rainstorm, it was discovered that the manhole was actually a sewer because “sewer and water” from the rainstorm backed up into the basement of the building adjacent to the sidewalk that was being repaired. (Id. at 11-14). To correct the issue, the contractor had to “jackhammer” the concrete out of the sewer line and the City “had to dig up the street to fix the problem.” (Id. at 14-15). According to Wagner, fixing the sewer line cost the City “roughly around $5000.” (Id. at 18).
{¶19} Wagner testified that he “asked for a statement of what happened” from Cassaro. (Id.). The City also obtained statements from the contractor and the
{¶20} While the City was repairing the sewer line, the City became aware of “a second incident after that, on another matter” involving Cassaro. (Jan. 13, 2015 Tr. at 18-19). Regarding the second incident, Cassaro, while in the City‘s zoning and engineering office after a city planning meeting,—in the presence of the City‘s zoning administrator, John Rostash (“Rostash“)—accused the owner of Central Ohio Recycling and Salvage, Clay Korner (“Korner“), of buying stolen property. (Id. at 21-22). Wagner testified that Korner sent a letter to the City stating his intention to sue the city based on Cassaro‘s statements. (Id. at 23). According to
{¶21} As a result of Cassaro‘s conduct underlying both incidents, he was suspended pending investigation. (Id. at 24). After a meeting “to go over the allegations” “through the union,” Cassaro was terminated for “providing false information and lying [] in the investigation.” (Id.).
{¶22} At the February 9, 2015 hearing, Wagner offered further testimony on behalf of the City. (Feb. 9, 2015 Tr. at 4). Wagner testified that Cassaro was dishonest in his written statement regarding the sewer-line incident. (Id. at 6). Indeed, in the written statement provided to Wagner by Cassaro, which is included as an exhibit in the administrative file, Cassaro explained that, regarding the sewer-line incident, the contractor “asked me what exactly the manhole was. I told him I did not know, but historically they have been cisterns, coal bins, or other unknown structures.” (Doc. No. 12, Exs. A, B). The remainder of Cassaro‘s written statement indicates that he told the contractor to verify that the manhole was an old coal bin or cistern before proceeding, and also indicates that he discussed with the contractor
{¶23} Wagner further testified that Cassaro denied accusing Korner of buying stolen items. (Feb. 9, 2015 Tr. at 7). Wagner testified that Cassaro was terminated from his employment after the City determined that Cassaro falsified his reports regarding those incidents. (Id.).
{¶24} Rostash testified that Cassaro said—in Rostash‘s presence—that Korner “was buying stolen copper from you know nefarious people in the city[.]” (Id. at 44-45). He further testified that Korner was “very offended” by Cassaro‘s accusation. (Id. at 46). According to Rostash, Cassaro later acknowledged to him
{¶25} Cassaro testified on his own behalf and maintained that he did not tell the contractor that the manhole was a coal bin or that he could fill it with concrete. (Feb. 9, 2015 Tr. at 16, 19-22). Cassaro testified that, because the contractor did not obtain a permit or conduct “underground utility locates,” “the contractor [is] solely responsible for any damage that he caused with [] negligence of his work.” (Id. at 22-23).
{¶26} Cassaro also maintained that he did not accuse Korner of buying stolen copper. (Id. at 30-31). Indeed, when directly asked whether he stated that Korner was buying stolen copper, Cassaro testified, “No I did not.” (Id. at 31-32). Rather, Cassaro minimized the statement he made about Korner. (See id. at 30-32). He testified, in part, “It says that I accused somebody of doing something, but in the city‘s investigation from their letter September 17 that clearly states yes, Mr. Davis stole scrap copper. Yes Mr. [K]orner bought the copper and it says [] that the [sic] Mr. [K]orner received a restitution check so as far as any slander, I‘m not sure you know what happened there.” (Id. at 31).
{¶28} Cassaro also argues on appeal that his termination was unconstitutional under Ohio‘s civil service system because his termination was “extra discipline.” (Appellant‘s Brief at 15). Cassaro‘s argument is meritless because whether he was properly terminated under Ohio‘s civil service laws has no
{¶29} Based on our review of the record, there is some competent, credible evidence supporting the Commission‘s determination that Cassaro was discharged from his employment with the City for just cause—namely, there is some competent, credible evidence that Cassaro lied to the City or falsified work-related
{¶30} Cassaro‘s assignment of error is overruled.
{¶31} Having found no error prejudicial to the appellant herein in the particulars assigned and argued, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment Affirmed
WILLAMOWSKI and ROGERS, J.J., concur.
/jlr