Last month, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that Ohio law does not permit classified employees to challenge allegedly unlawful reductions in pay in a private lawsuit because the exclusive remedy is an appeal to the applicable civil service commission. Binder v. Cuyahoga Cty., Slip Op. 2020-Ohio-5126. In ordering a dismissal of the class action lawsuits, the Court concluded “R.C. 124.34 does not allow a civil service employee to file an action in common pleas court to vindicate alleged violations of the statute by an appointing authority.” Yet although the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for relief, the Court also concluded that the common pleas court still possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the claims because the statutory scheme had not explicitly divested the courts of such jurisdiction.
Following the County’s adoption of a new form of government,
an ordinance adopted a uniform workweek and paid lunch break (i.e., 40 hours
and 1 hour), while maintaining salary levels.
This apparently disadvantaged employees who had previously worked only
35 hours/week and received 30 minutes for lunch. Accordingly, class action lawsuits were filed
challenging the ordinance and change in working conditions under O.R.C. §
124.34. The County moved to dismiss on
the ground, among other things, that their exclusive remedy was in the civil
service system and did not permit class actions.
The Court noted that plaintiffs who seek redress for
statutory violations must first show that the statute provides the requested
relief and right of action. The applicable
statute limits when an employee’s compensation may be reduced and the employee
has the right to appeal the reduction to the applicable civil service
commission within 10 days of receiving the written notice. However, just as classified employees who are
fired or suspended for five or more days can only appeal to the civil service
commission instead of filing a lawsuit, classified employees whose pay is
reduced can only challenge the reduction through the civil service system.
While the statute establishes an administrative scheme in which an aggrieved employee can appeal a reduction in pay to the SPBR or the applicable civil-service commission, we see no language in R.C. 124.34, or elsewhere in R.C. Chapter 124, demonstrating the General Assembly’s intent to authorize a civil action in common pleas court for violations of the statute. Had the General Assembly intended to allow civil actions as an avenue of redress, it could have said so expressly, as it has in other instances.
That being said, although the courts did not have the
authority under the relevant statutes to grant the requested relief, the Court
also found that the common pleas court possessed subject matter jurisdiction
over the claims because the statute did not divest the courts of jurisdiction.
With limited exceptions, R.C. 2305.01 grants the courts of common pleas subject-matter jurisdiction over “all civil cases in which the sum or matter in dispute exceeds the exclusive original jurisdiction of county courts.” Because of this general grant of jurisdiction, “a court of common pleas has jurisdiction over any case in which the matter in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional limit unless some statute takes that jurisdiction away.”
. . . .
By contrast, R.C. 124.34 does not contain any express statutory language removing common pleas courts’ general jurisdiction. . . .
. . .
While R.C. 124.34 does not divest common pleas courts of their general subject-matter jurisdiction, appellees’ claims here for declaratory relief and damages ultimately fail because R.C. 124.34 does not authorize that relief. Stated another way, appellees’ complaints do not present a jurisdictional defect, but rather a failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
