Fletcher v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.Fletcher v. Ohio Dept. of Transp.
Rendered on August 28, 2012
Moses Law Offices, L.L.C., and Michael A. Moses, for appellant.
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Drew C. Piersall, and Joseph N. Rosenthal, for appellee.
APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
SADLER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Wylie K. Fletcher, appeals from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleаs affirming an order of the State Personnel Board of Review (“SPBR“) wherein SBPR dismissed appellant‘s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. Background
{¶ 2} Appellant began working for the Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT“) in March 2008 under the position title “Deputy Director 5,” a position which appellant acknowledged was an unclassified civil service position. Before his employment
{¶ 3} On November 5, 2010, appellant consented to a demotion from his position as Deputy Director 5 to the position of “Administrative Officer 2,” which is а position in the classified service, effective November 7, 2010. In January 2011, a deputy director of human resources for ODOT reviewed appellant‘s employment status and determined that, because appеllant‘s new position was his first classified service position with ODOT, he was required to serve a 180-day probationary period. In a letter dated January 28, 2011, ODOT informed appellant that he had been a probationary еmployee as of November 7, 2010, the date he was placed into the classified service position. In a separate letter dated that same day, ODOT informed appellant that his employment was terminаted by probationary removal due to unsatisfactory service.
{¶ 4} Appellant appealed his removal to the SPBR pursuant to
{¶ 5} Appellant filed an appeal to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. After the parties filed their respective briefs, the trial court issued a decision and entry affirming the SPBR‘s order of dismissal.
II. Assignments of Error
{¶ 6} In a timely appeal, appellant presents the following two assignments of error for our consideration:
[1.] The decision of the lower court was erroneous insofar as it affirmed the order of the state personal board of review dismissing an employee‘s appeal from the appellee‘s removal without a hearing because it was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and was not in accordance with law.
[2.] The decision of the lower court was erroneous insofar as it affirmed the order of the state personal board of review in adopting the finding that Mr. Fletcher was in a probationary
period at the time of his removal since his classified status arose via a transfer from another agency, bеcause it was not supported by reliable, probative and substantial evidence and was not in accordance with law.
{¶ 7} In both assignments of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred by affirming SPBR‘s order. Aрpellant claims that SPBR erred by not holding a hearing before dismissing his appeal and by finding him to be a probationary employee that, under
{¶ 8} In an administrative appeal under
{¶ 9} In this case, the trial court affirmed the SPBR‘s dеcision to dismiss appellant‘s appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The SPBR “derives its jurisdiction from
{¶ 10} As pertinent here, the SPBR‘s jurisdiction over the removal of a probationary employee is outlined in
All original and promotional appointments, including appointments made pursuant to section 124.30 of the Revised Code, but not intеrmittent appointments, shall be for a probationary period, not less than sixty days nor more than one year * * *. No appointment or promotion is final until the appointee has satisfactorily served the probationary period. If the service of the probationary employee is unsatisfactory, the employee may be removed or reduced at any time during the probationary period. If the apрointing authority decides to remove a probationary employee in the service of the state, the appointing authority shall communicate the removal to the director. A probationary employee duly removed or reduced in position for unsatisfactory service does not have the right to appeal the removal or reduction under section 124.34 of the Revised Code.
Former
{¶ 11} This statute empowers an appointing authority to remove a probationary employee for unsatisfactory service at any time during the probationary period and evidences the legislature‘s intent “to divest the SPBR of jurisdiction over all probationary removals, regardless of when they occurred.” (Emphasis sic.) State ex rel. Rose v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 91 Ohio St.3d 453, 457 (2001). ” ‘Since the probationary period is for the benefit of the appointing authority to aid in the determination of merit and fitness for civil servicе employment[,] * * * the General Assembly historically has provided for a degree of leeway in the dismissal of probationary employees.’ ” Id., quoting Walton v. Montgomery Cty. Welfare Dept., 69 Ohio St.2d 58, 59 (1982). Moreover, it is well settled that probationary civil service emplоyees have no property interest in continued employment sufficient to warrant due process protection. Rose at 457, citing Walton at 64; Jacomin v. Cleveland, 70 Ohio App.3d 163, 168 (8th Dist.1990); Taylor v. Middletown, 58 Ohio App.3d 88, 91-92 (12th Dist.1989).
{¶ 12} Appellant does not dispute that, under former
{¶ 13} “Words and phrases shall be read in сontext and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage.”
{¶ 14} “Original appointment” is not defined in
{¶ 15} From these definitions, an original appointmеnt occurs the first time an appointing authority places an employee into a position of classified service. While former
{¶ 16} Here, appellant‘s original appointment occurred in November 2010, when ODOT first placed him into a classified civil service position of Administrative Officer 2. Whether or not he was voluntarily or involuntarily demoted into the position, his placement in that position still amounted to an “appointment” under the common and administrativе definitions of the word. Moreover, while appellant argues that he had previously been in a classified position with ODRC, the appointment was nevertheless “original” with respect to ODOT—a different appointing аuthority that had never placed him into a classified position before. As appellee correctly notes, appellant‘s completion of a probationary period at one point in his career did not exempt him from all future probationary periods required by different agencies. Therefore, appellant‘s voluntary demotion was an original appointment to a classified service position, and he was therefore a probationary employee as of November 2010.
{¶ 17} Pursuant to former
{¶ 18} Therefore, appellant‘s first and second assignments of error аre overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 19} Having overruled appellant‘s first and second assignments of error, we affirm the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas.
Judgment affirmed.
KLATT and CONNOR, JJ., concur.
_____________________________