*1
al., Appellants,
The State
ex rel.
et
Nese
Teachers Retirement
State
County
Ohio, Appellee;
Board
of
Jefferson
Educational
Service
Governing
Appellant.
Board,
Center
as State ex
Nese v. State Teachers Retirement
[Cite
Ohio,
of
Bd.
103,
{¶ (“the appellants instructors”) John Donald and Catherine Miles compel writs mandamus to respondent-appellee State Teachers Retirement (“STRS”) Board accept employer to its contributions retirement fund and to compel respondent-appellant County Jefferson Education- (“Jefferson ESC”) al Service Center Board Governing County employer to make system contributions to the retirement on their behalf. question salient this is not whether appeal were instructors
“teachers” as that term Rather, is commonly question understood.1 before us is whether the STRS had some evidence to its conclusion that support contractors, instructors and not employees, the Jefferson County ESC therefore were not within “teachers” the meaning of R.C. 3307.01(B)(5). Because the instructors fail to establish the STRS its abused
discretion determining they were not meaning “teachers” within the 3307.01(B)(5), we affirm must the decision of the court which appeals, provide 1. Nese and are Williams teachers local school hired districts (“VLA”). Academy Learning instruction to students the Virtual Miles is retired teacher hired provide instruction to the students in the VLA. that the STRS abused had not established the instructors similarly held that discretion. *2 Background
Relevant (“ESC”) statutory part creation. As center” An service “education {¶ 4} support is to to state provide system, purpose service regional an educational school and student initiatives and effectiveness improve local educational and 3312.01(A). An services to school districts provides ESC achievement. R.C. 3312.01(A) (C); Has- by by contract statute. community schools Law, 4.5, Jaffe, Sharb, Section Manoloff, & Baldwin’s Ohio School Sheeran tings, (2011-2012 Ed.). 44-45 administrators, with and students County ESC works Jefferson 2001, in of those superintendents In some
in local school districts. school seven in their districts caused of resources depletion concerned over the schools were schools,” known “charter “community also by the loss of students recruited schools,” Assembly’s enactment of R.C. by which authorized General Laws, 909, I, in Part 1187. See State ex Ohio Chapter 3314 1997. Ohio 568, Edn., 2006- Parents & Teachers State Bd. Congress ¶ 1, it was Ohio-5512, 1148, believed that superintendents N.E.2d compete that could be used to necessary options” to research “online curriculum schools, began looking a “virtual County charter ESC with Jefferson being by that was used another district. learning academy” A is an “internet-based educational learning academy” “virtual “VLA” 6}{¶ K-12, educational delivery system designed providing options alternative instruction, deficiencies, schooling, home bound programs, credit alternative home school; A VLA is not a it is “educational programs.” and 2002 summer school “systematic like which involves instruction which option,” learning,” “distance mail or electronic media.” Ohio participate the instructor student and/or 3301-35-01(B)(10)(a) as an learning” “distance “educational (including Adm.Code option”). market, that the researching County ESC determined After Jefferson vendor, Learning through available a California
best on-line curriculum was Learning with passed partner ESC a resolution to Springs. and, eventually, local and then marketed its own VLA to school districts Springs proved But as more successful program around the state. districts students, fully with align over curriculum’s failure to enrolling concerns arose 2003, hired state standards. ESC Ohio’s academic-content state fully align so that it with teachers to rewrite curriculum would standards. Although any we are not aware of case in or federal reported the state confronted,
courts that addresses which specific question with we are we are “cyber aware that schools” and curriculum like the are options increasing America. A number of form learning public states include virtual as a education. See generally Browning, Residency Will Be Relevant to Public (2010). 297, Education the Twenty-First Century?, 8 Pierce L.Rev. 338-339 Indeed, schools cyber increasingly popular, rapidly are addition growing, to the community. “cyber” education There were 60 “virtual” or only charter 2009, 100,000 schools in America in than more students were Eckles, enrolled in 195 virtual Brady, schools 26 states. & Umpstead Territory: Legal Landscape Cyber Unchartered The Current Public Charter Schools, 2010 B.Y.U.Educ. & L.Rev. 191. is at Ohio the forefront of this “In development. had only six
cyber schools. officially granted charter Since Ohio has charters for the *3 thirty-nine 196, opening cyber additional charter fn. schools.” Id. at 19. As of April 2008, 22,000 the VLA served in 180 students school districts in Ohio.2 in case instructors this were to instruct in hired students
{¶ VLA. 10} Each instructor can serve hundreds of in a given year. students If a school district to part curriculum, decides use the as VLA its own that district decides faculty whether use its own or the staff. If VLA staff, school district decides to use County VLA Jefferson “matches” students to one of VLA County instructors. Jefferson receives a participation fee of per student for “passes its role and through” $175 the pay VLA instructors receive, semester, which is per per student or per $105 student for a full $210 (two-semester) academic year. In order to pay, obtain that stipend VLA instructors submit form
Jefferson County ESC completes when a student a course or the student’s license expires. If the school course, district withdraws a from a student VLA Jefferson County pays the ESC instructor on a prorated basis for the number units of the course the student completes. instructors, Nese, As VLA Williams, and Miles did not have contracts Rather,
with County. Jefferson they signed a form provided by Jefferson County that stated that they agreed “to be on board to take on VLA students.” instructors, As VLA they did not receive health insurance or fringe other benefits County However, Jefferson ESC. VLA most instructors are full-time working teachers classrooms. Nese and Williams served as teachers local however, Notably, County Jefferson ESC has VLA marketed its curriculum to other states and to foreign efforts, Through presence countries. those successful has a VLA all 50 states and in over 14 countries. through other benefits insurance and and thus received health school districts of the a teacher the end jobs. Miles retired as teaching traditional And their through her retirement likely those benefits year school received 2008-2009 plan. great to a deal of latitude and Miles were entitled 14}
{¶ authorized to create For VLA instructors were day-to-day example, work. their as the final or to use on-line lessons examinations their own midterm examinations. instructors, free, when and other VLA choose They were also were which County specific did not set times at did work. Jefferson they
where the work had to be to instruct or deadlines which they required were to work for teachers place offered a although And Jefferson completed. were not computer, have to a the VLA instructors and students who do not access fact, In instructors worked at home to teach there. most of required typical often did so after school hours. public library at a its VLA instructors to be initially ESC considered it rather not deduct employees. Consequently, contractors than did however, Eventually, system. into the retirement pay contributions employees to treat instructors as and withheld County ESC decided its VLA Thus, example, received a 1099 accordingly. contributions Williams VLA, County for in the for 2005 instructing form from Jefferson his work W-2 instructors also received 1099 through he received forms. Other initially subsequently forms received W-2s. that the VLA November STRS determined instructors *4 all employees. contractors instead of It refunded contributions
independent Thereafter, County on the VLA behalf. made Jefferson ESC instructors’ for adopted faculty, duties its VLA County specifying Jefferson ESC resolution daily including general grade the duties of into the on a basis to “logging system work, students, answering questions, providing student’s student’s feedback to students, outlining to to And expectations structure students.” providing Williams, Nese, performance and Miles were evaluations after the STRS’s given that they were contractors. decision 2009, in the and Miles filed an action December In their Appeals challenging
Tenth District Court of the STRS’s decision. Nese, Williams, and Miles writs of to complaint, sought amended mandamus requisite the to compel employer ESC to make contributions to compel their instruction to the STRS system the retirement VLA on their work for the VLA accept employer contributions based final compensation average salary their calculating and to include their VLA inclu- seeking In so the VLA were doing, for retirement instructors purposes. of compensation sion their as VLA into the calculation of final instructors annual salary purposes. for retirement The amounts are the instruc- significant: allege working tors the compensation ranged the from $66,324 to of of hundreds tens thousands dollars and reached as as for one high instructor. 2011, 29, On December the of the writ. The court appeals court denied
held that there was support finding some evidence to the STRS’s that the VLA Nese, Williams, Miles, instructors contractors. and Jefferson County ESC to court. appealed this now affirm. We
Analysis
Applicable
Mandamus
the
of
Standard
Review
relief, mandamus,
The instructors seek extraordinary
compel
retirement-system
STRS
accept
contributions for their work while instructing
relief,
To be
requested
ESC.
entitled to the
and Miles must establish
clear legal right
recognized
be
of
members
system
work,
retirement
for their VLA
a corresponding
legal
clear
on
duty
part
the STRS to
them
treat
as retirement-system
accept
members
work,
contributions for their VLA
and the lack
adequate
remedy
ordinary
course
the law. State
Bldg.
ex
Academy
Nation
Technical
v.
¶
Edn.,
35,
Dept.
is more than a evidence,” mere “preponderance of the to the extent of such certainty as is required “beyond a reasonable doubt” in criminal cases, and will produce [that] in the mind trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to facts sought to be established. Brunner,
State ex rel. Husted 1215, 18, quoting Ledford, Cross v. (1954), St. N.E.2d 118 paragraph syllabus. three *5 analysis We our begin with the of propriety 22} mandamus relief in this
{¶ case. Assembly “The General established the State Teachers Retirement
System to pay retirement allowances and other benefits to public school and the State Teachers Retirement Board manages administers and the retire- 108 Ohio, Retirement Bd. v. Teachers Morgan ex rel. State system.” State
ment
of
¶
506, 19,
teacher
law.
ordinary
in the
course of
remedy
lack
adequate
Miles
if
they show
the STRS
Thus,
to the instructors
mandamus is available
rel.
v. State
See State ex
Hulls
its determination.
making
its discretion
abused
438,
trary,
unconscionable.”
“
¶
353,
Thus,
long as
156,
807
13.
‘[a]s
N.E.2d
decisions, we
retirement-system
board’s
support [a]
there is sufficient evidence
”
Emps.
v.
ex rel. Marchiano
School
Retirement
not disturb them.’
State
will
¶
139,
board’s
the board is found
right to a writ mandamus exists when
legal
“clear
[A]
an order that is not
by entering
its discretion
have abused
Emps.
v.
Pub.
Retirement
Schaengold
ex rel.
[State
some evidence.”
2789921,
05AP-1002,]
109
Board determinations that claimants
independent
contractors rather
than public employees.
147,
114 Ohio St.3d fortiori, A if there is some evidence the support board’s determina- tion, Co., mandamus will not lie. Foley State ex rel. Mfg. Vulcan 84 St.3d Ohio 59, 60, (1998) (because 701 993 N.E.2d was there “some evidence on which the rely” benefits, [Industrial Commission] could court denying the “cannot disturb decision”), Inc., the commission’s citing State ex Burley v. Coil 31 Packing, (1987). Ohio N.E.2d 936 is always Deference due an abuse-of-discretion But it case. is
particularly when, here, important as presented we are conflicting with evidence on whether a is worker or an employee independent contractor. cases which worker presents some evidence he is an than an employee rather contractor, question the one of becomes fact that should be decided Laird, 617,186 the fact-finder. Indus. Comm. v. (1933), Ohio St. N.E. 718 Connor, paragraph syllabus. three of See also Bostic v.
145-146,
(1988) (the
(1) Any person paid public funds employed public schools of state any type under of contract described in section 3311.77 or 3319.08 of the position Revised Code in a for which person 7, 2013, January (B)(4) language 3. Effective previously was subsection of R.C. 3307.01 (B)(5). appeal's now in subsection 2012 Sub.S.B. No. 342. 3319.22to 3319.31 pursuant a license sections to have issued required Code; the Revised *7 school,
(5) employed any faculty member teacher or Any other institution, wholly controlled agency or other university, college, any political the state or part, by or whole managed, university, state thereof, Cleveland including Central state subdivision of Toledo. university, university and the 3307.01(B), para- R.C. our statutory including In construing provisions, Grace, Auto. v. Farm Mut. Ins. Co. legislative concern is the intent. State
mount
¶
statutory
“An axiom of
918 N.E.2d
123
St.3d
* * *
particular
a technical or
acquired
is
that have
that ‘[w]ords
construction
otherwise,
construed
shall be
by legislative definition
meaning, whether
”
Ohio,
376, 2007-
v.
Bd.
113 Ohio St.3d
State Med.
accordingly.’
of
Hoffman
1259, 26,
Ohio-2201,
R.C. 1.42.
quoting
865 N.E.2d
3307.01(B)(1)
(5)
to
that
must
require
employees
individuals
be
But
system’s pension plan.
retirement
thus covered
the
be “teachers” —and
“teachers,”
were
and Miles
not
the STRS determined
they
employees
than
when
they
independent
contractors rather
because
legal
thus turn to the
as VLA instructors
ESC. We
worked
from an
contractor.
distinguishing
employee
tests for
Independent
Distinguishing Employees from
Law:
Contractors
Common
is an
or an
determining
employee
“The chief test
whether one
means
right
performing
is the
to control the manner or
of
independent contractor
(1946),
Comm.,
64
v. Indus.
146 Ohio St.
N.E.2d 829
the work.” Bobik
Foods, Inc.,
Foran
17 Ohio
syllabus.
one
the
also
v. Fisher
of
See
paragraph
(1985)
193, 194,
(holding
day-to-day
that “one who exercises
478 N.E.2d
as
is
employer”).
right
over the
will be considered
the
“If such
control
if
employee;
of
but
the
employer,
relationship
employer
the
is that
the
the
responsible
work is
to one
to
performing
manner or means of
the
left
alone, an
contractor
is created.”
relationship
for the result
employer
Bator,
275, 279,
(2002),
every performed according specifications. him to that the is enable ensure contract (1943). 373, 382, Thus, Comm., we v. Indus. Ohio St. Gillum
Ill distinguished have on the continuum of control whether a worker an employee is anor independent contractor:
“The control of the work reserved in the employer which effects a master-
servant
is
relationship
control
the
means
manner of
performance
work,
result;
the
as well
an independent
relationship
contractor
person doing
exists where the
work
subject
is
will
only
result,
employer
as to the
as to the
means or manner
accomplishment. Thus, a person employed
perform
certain work is not
necessarily a mere servant because the
provides
contract
that the work
subject
shall be
approval
or satisfaction of the
employer. Such
provision
not an
assumption
employer
right
to control the
person employed
work,
as to the details or method of
doing
only
but is
provision
the employer may see that the contract is carried out
*8
also,
according
plans.”
626,
to the
21
4;
See
Ohio Jurisprudence,
Section
v. Metropolitan
Co.,
289,
Miller
291,
Ins.
134
St.
Ohio
indicia as who work; controls the details and quality of the who controls worked; materials, the hours who selects used; and personnel tools travelled; who selects the routes length of employment; type business; the method of payment; any pertinent agreements or contracts. Connor, 146, v.
Bostic 37 Ohio 524 N.E.2d 881. We now view the evidence in the record through {¶ 36} the lens of the foregoing law on and employment. mandamus
The Record The record that demonstrates the instructors not did an have employ- ment contract with They ESC. not did receive health insurance or other fringe benefits.
112 their own examinations. and could create their own hours They set work They their work. perform facilities to County ESC’s They not use Jefferson did instruct or courses. number of students required specific a were not flat fees student. per which were paid “stipends,” The instructors were purposes forms for tax instead W-2 initially them received 1099 forms Two of independent be them to originally considered ESC because than employees. contractors rather a public factors comparable upholding relied on We have rath are contractors persons
retirement board’s determination
membership and benefits.
retirement-system
employees entitled
public
er than
¶
719,
147,
N.E.2d
20-21
See,
e.g., Schaengold,
a
(factors
magistrate pursuant
a
temporary
attorney serving
included
fee,
employee fringe
eligible
flat
not
for
paid
contract was
a
was
bilateral
hearings
issuing
or
benefits,
supervised
conducting
controlled
was not
or
courts of
decisions,
Similarly,
tax
purposes).
and received a form
facts,
found,
an
contractor
person
have
on similar
was
appeals
See,
Emps.
v. Ohio Pub.
e.g.,
than
State ex
Curtin
employee.
rather
09AP-801,
{¶42} employers’ manual performed that the teaching “[i]f duties contractor are the same performed by as those teachers under employment contracts, then there is no [retirement-system] difference for purposes.” But even assuming purely arguendo that we are bound accept that statement as true, evidence, the instructors submitted no credible much clear and less convinc- evidence, ing to establish that their duties were the same performed by as those other working teachers with employment ESC under contracts. us, On the record before we cannot say that the STRS’s determination unreasonable, was arbitrary, or worst, unconscionable. At the evidence was equivocal. Reasonable minds could differ as to whether Miles were independent contractors employees ESC when they acted as VLA instructors. our Rather, But role is not to review de novo. our duty under the law of only Ohio is review abuse discretion. In discharging duty, affirm we the decision of appeals the court of because the instructors have to present failed clear convincing evidence establishing they were employees. The court of appeals properly held that STRS’s decision was supported therefore, some evidence and that manda- mus not would lie. Finally, recognize we that the dissent in the appeals court of expressed
concern over STRS’s
imposing the traditional attributes of a teacher on the less than traditional and, in light technological advances, a likely increasingly common approach teaching. vary What constitutes control will with the circum- stances, and the considerably circumstances here are different than those of the more traditional classroom and make the factors [the STRS] cites pertinent to determining whether relators are employees. J., 2011 WL 16 (Bryant, concurring part and part). dissenting We do not disagree with cyber the view the VLA and present way schools a new of teaching. But it is precisely for those reasons that STRS, area, expertise And, with its course, this is entitled to deference. Assembly General is entitled to change the definition of “teacher” in R.C. 3307.01(B)(5) to encompass VLA instructors and other independent contractors *10 cyber who work in however, schools. Those prerogatives, not judicial are ones.
Conclusion Nese, Williams, conclude that We and by Miles did not establish clear {¶ 46} convincing and evidence that the STRS abused by determining its discretion 3307.01(B) work as of their purposes “teachers” under R.C. they not affirm ESC. We therefore County operated the VLA instructors for of appeals. of the court judgment the affirmed.
Judgment JJ., Lanzinger, Ringland, Kennedy, concur. and O’Neill, JJ., O’Donnell, dissent. Pfeifer, District, sitting for French, J., Appellate P. of the Twelfth Ringland,
Robert J. J., dissenting.
O’Donnell, I dissent. Respectfully,
{¶ 47} Williams, Nese, Donald is whether relators John issue in this case Teachers the State participate teachers entitled to Miles are and Catherine at the Jeffer- (“STRS”) employment in connection with System Retirement through the teaching services providing Service Center son Educational (“VLA”). view, they are teachers because academy my they In learning virtual teachers, magistrate appellate and the court statutory meet the definition the concluding discretion had abused its determined that the STRS addition, magis- court appellate independent contractors. relators were employed Educational Service Center found that the Jefferson trate through the VLA. Williams, teaching services Nese, provide Miles to to teach from the state Nese, Williams, Miles held a license each through the schools but also only public Ohio, each instructed students Center, supported agency Service County Educational VLA of the Jefferson of service. STRS state, years for their and each contributed to STRS by the review, magistrate. appellate its of the On objected legal to the conclusions them magistrate’s findings, disregarded but then approved adopted court Nese, Williams, contractors. and Miles were by concluding statutorily as qualify and Miles Because record, and because are magistrate’s findings because magistrate of the by adopting findings court abused discretion appellate court and writ, appellate I decision of the would reverse the denying but then the writ. grant History Background and Procedural
Factual they County, school taught and Miles County Educational of the Jefferson through the also courses taught K-12. Accord- designed for Center, system an Internet-based educational Service
115 decision, ing to magistrate’s provided Nese teaching through services year from the 2005-2006 fiscal through the year, 2007-2008 fiscal Williams provided and Miles services program year the 2004-2005 fiscal through the 2007-2008 year, fiscal and contributions were submitted to STRS relators the Jefferson County Educational Service Center for that service. However, in a letter, December $14,771.93 contributions, STRS refunded asserting earnings for the VLA were being returned as unauthorized contributions. December and Miles filed a mandamus
complaint the Tenth District Court of Appeals seeking compel STRS to accept their earnings contributions for from the Jefferson County Educational Service Center. appellate The court referred the matter a magistrate, who found that the Jefferson Nese, Educational Service Center employed Williams, and Miles to provide teaching through VLA, services further found that relators had received W-2 and 1099 forms from the Center, Educational Service and concluded that relators’ receipt these “does not indicate independent contractor status.” The magistrate also noted that the Jefferson County Educational Service Center exercises control over relators and concluded that their status was that employees, independent contractors. The magistrate also referred to an sheet, STRS employer fact which suggested that even hiring independent contractors does not necessarily relieve the employ- er of obligation to forward contributions on earnings. magistrate thus concluded that Williams, and fit Miles within statutory definition of teacher and recommended that the writ be permit allowed to participate them to in STRS. court, The appellate after reviewing magistrate’s recommendation
and adopting findings, rejected the magistrate’s legal conclusions and instead concluded that STRS did not abuse its discretion in concluding relators are independent contractors. Relators and the Jefferson County Educational Service Center appealed denial this court.
Standard of Review
This court
applies
standard
abuse
discretion when reviewing an
appellate court decision on a complaint
seeking writ of mandamus. State ex rel.
Hillyer
Cty.
Commrs.,
Tuscarawas
Bd.
94, 97,
70 Ohio St.3d
Relators “[a]ny other to include 3307.01(B)(5) “teacher” the term defines * * * wholly controlled agency any other employed in member faculty teacher any political by the state or part, or in in whole managed, *12 Service Center County Educational the Jefferson Because thereof.” subdivision R.C. from the state. district, funding it receives county school a is successor 420, 426, 115 N.E. Martin, 3301.07(C). St. In v. 3311.05(A); Cline R.C. as of school districts county education (1916), of characterized boards we the administration, control of organization, for the the state of “agencies * * * other subdivi- state, separate apart the system of school public statute, service educational Thus, conformity with this in the state.” sions of generally the See part by or in state. in whole agencies supported centers are R.C. 3317.11. 3307.01(B)(5) in em- addition, which emphasizes capacity the R.C.
{¶ 57} teachers from those as occurs, distinguish employed in those order ployment administrators, etc. as or custodians or such cooks employed capacities, in other capacity in the employed those defines teachers as This therefore statute the state. by agency supported in an faculty employed or members teachers to teach has a license teaching profession, Here, relator is a member of the each by through services the Ohio, teaching and provided state of by issued the Center, an Service County Educational at the Jefferson employment virtue of is the state. agency that in “employee” term Assembly does not use the the General Notably, in it has done other 3307.01(B)(5), employment it status as require does
R.C. nor 145.01(A)(3) (“public R.C. systems. Compare to retirement relating statutes employer, a public is “[a]ny employee who an employee” person means is derived employment for that person’s compensation that the notwithstanding added); (emphasis entity employer”) other than person from funds of a System Patrol Retirement (membership Highway Ohio State R.C. 5505.02 5505.01], and defined in employees, [R.C. as highway patrol all state “includes added). Al- (emphasis employees”) is for such mandatory membership such to be an could have teacher Assembly required the General though 3307.01(B)(5), so. it did not do of “teacher” in the definition Thus, teachers the Jefferson my view, employed relators were as 3307.01(B)(5). meaning of R.C. within County Educational Service Center Employee Independent Contractor vs. teachers only employed as permits those urges that R.C. 3307.01 STRS supports evidence some system, claiming in the retirement participate
determination contractors, and Miles were employees, ineligible to participate in STRS. to this Contrary position, magistrate found that the Jefferson Educational Service Center them employed finding supported by competent, credible evidence: forms at W-2 issued relators for
least
years
some
service
control of the mode and
manner
instruction
the Educational
Notably,
Service Center.
Gillum Indus.
Comm.,
(1943),
141 Ohio St.
Hiring an fill individual to an STRS Ohio-covered an position through independent contract or temporary agency necessarily does not relieve an employer’s obligation to earnings make contributions on to STRS Ohio. the individual’s duties are the same as those performed by teachers or If contracts, administrators under employment STRS Ohio considers the individual to be an employee requires and contributions to be remitted to STRS Ohio.
Please note that agreement be an independent contractor not is the sole indicator of a true independent contract relationship. Primary Attorney criterion cited in General Opinions and IRS for Guidelines distinguishing between an independent contractor and an is the right the employer to control the “mode and manner” of the work performed. added.)
(Emphasis The magistrate’s recommendation concluded as follows: “Given the record, fact that relators fit within 3307.01(B)(4), the definition of R.C. and STRS policy contractors, regarding independent the evidence fails to support [State Teachers Retirement finding Board’s] that relators are members STRS for the with employment [Jefferson Educational Service Center] teaching the VLA.” 2011 WL The difficulty for me with the court of appeals’ opinion is that it adopted ¶ the factual findings magistrate, disregarded but then in those findings analysis its when it concluded that the did STRS not abuse its discretion in concluding that the relators were independent contractors. appellate The court’s prove did and because relators adopted, it findings contradict conclusions their years some of for at least STRS participate entitlement their the writ. denying service, abused its discretion appeals the court of
Conclusion forth in of teacher set satisfy the definition and Miles Center, agency 3307.01(B)(5). County Educational Service The Jefferson they capacity served state, them employed time, they during that contributions years, they made STRS
for several unexpect- for retirement. sudden as teachers on their status relied for on its assertion that contributions ed of those contributions STRS refund wholly unwarranted. are unauthorized earnings appeals the court abused I conclude that would Accordingly, contrary concluding, then findings magistrate of its adopting discretion what it returning did not abuse its discretion findings, that STRS those judgment reverse the I would therefore “unauthorized” contributions. called grant requested writ. appeals court of O’Neill, JJ., foregoing opinion. concur in the Pfeifer III, Mirkin, Okusewsky Haines, Co., L.P.A., Ira J. Green, Stanley Sgambati J. Oldfield, and Cather- John Donald appellants W. and Charles ine Miles. Jackson, J. Ltd., Minney, R. and Mark Brent
Pepple Waggoner,
&
Governing Board.
County Educational Service Center
*14
appellant
E.
General,
and John
DeWine,
Allan K. Showalter
Attorney
Michael
General,
Patterson,
Attorneys
appellee.
Assistant
Appellee.
v. Erie
Company,
Appellants,
al„
Insurance
Marusa
et