The Court ruled two Cincinnati city workers should receive a hearing to contest being placed on leave during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Two Cincinnati city employees were wrongly denied their right to have a hearing before the Cincinnati Civil Service Commission regarding being placed on leave during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.
In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled the commission should have held a hearing to determine if the city’s Temporary Emergency Leave (TEL) program constituted a “layoff” and if individual employees could contest the city’s procedures to select the workers who were placed on leave.
The decision affirmed a First District Court of Appeals ruling, which found that the commission should have conducted a hearing, and state law allowed the two workers to appeal the decision to the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court.
Writing for the Court majority, Justice Melody Stewart explained that the commission used a proceeding called an “appearance” to reject challenges to the emergency leave program initiated by city union workers Jeffrey Harmon and David Beasley. The appearance proceeding could not be appealed to common pleas court, according to Stewart. Citing the First District’s decision, she wrote that the commission could not “abandon its own rules” to avoid holding a hearing where decisions could be appealed.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, Michael P. Donnelly, and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Stewart’s decision.
In dissenting opinion, Justice Joseph T. Deters wrote that Harmon and Beasley only had the right to appeal to the commission if TEL was considered a layoff. However, in his view, nothing in civil service rules required such hearings for determining layoffs. Therefore, he argued that using an appearance process rather than holding a hearing was not erroneous and noted that decisions from this process could not be appealed in common pleas court.
Justice R. Patrick DeWine joined Justice Deters’ dissent.
Harmon and Beasley were longtime city workers and members of Cincinnati Organized and Dedicated Employees (CODE), representing city workers. In April 2020, as it forecasted a $27.5 million budget deficit due to revenue declines from COVID-19 closures, Cincinnati implemented TEL to preserve basic services and stabilize finances until future projections became clearer. Under TEL, workers were placed on leave with options either cashing in accrued paid leave or seeking unemployment compensation from state while receiving no pay from city.
Harmon and Beasley chose paid leave time but contested their placement on leave with claims of improper procedural adherence under civil service rules for conducting layoffs; CODE also filed similar grievances with commission on behalf of other city workers.
City maintained TEL wasn’t layoff thus exempting it from civil service rule compliance regarding layoffs procedures; however Harmon-Beasley requested formal hearings which were declined by commission offering instead less formal appearance process agreeing with city's stance thus precluding further proceedings or appeals based upon non-layoff status determination via appearance process ruling upheld by trial court ordering subsequent hearings following common pleas reversal affirmed at appellate level prompting supreme court review acceptance
Justice Stewart detailed local government ruling appeal processes under state law noting collective bargaining agreements between Cincinnati-CODE mandating binding arbitration grievance settlements subjecting parties exclusively thereto unless specific issues unaddressed permitting broader legal recourse without arbitration requirement application
City's union contract governing layoffs provision allows procedural aspect appeals before Civil Service Commission; Harmon-Beasley contended appealing procedural aspects bypasses arbitration necessity whereas another contractual clause cited city's retained rights over employment terms including legitimate reason-based layoffs
Court majority rejected reliance upon said provision citing forfeiture through omission during initial appellate challenge alongside specificity favoring invoked worker-contested procedural implementation rules despite general layoff decision-making rights accorded unto municipality per contractual language
Regardless whether TEL constituted layoff contractually guaranteed procedural challenge rights existed thereby entitling Harmon-Beasley lawful appeals unhindered under R.C 4117:01(A)
City countered arguing against appealability invoking R.C 2505:01(A) limiting appeals solely unto final orders adjudications or decisions resultant quasi-judicial proceedings necessitating notice hearings evidence presentation prerequisites unmet within mere appearances hence non-quasi-judicial nature disqualifying appeals eligibility notwithstanding what administrative agency performed versus mandated conduct obligations warranting hearing determinations classifiable quasi-judicial thus rendering resultant decisions appealable unto common pleas courts accordingly concluded justices empowering ordered commissions towards convening requisite hearings validating challenged claims merits evaluations therein
Conversely dissenters posited misinterpretation wherein preliminary questions surrounding layoff status resolution lacked compulsory hearing mandates suggesting permissible appearances sufficed addressing contentious classifications precluding quasi-judicial criteria fulfilment hence nonappealable resultant determinations reassertions emphasizing procedural authorizations consistency amidst regulatory frameworks interpretations diverging substantive conclusions delineations perspectives articulated dissents
2023-0559 Harmon v Cincinnati Slip Opinion No 2024 Ohio 2967
View oral argument video case
Please note: Opinion summaries prepared Office Public Information general public news media noteworthy cases official headnotes syllabi full text available online
Can Employees Challenge Forced COVID Leave Through Civil Service Commission?
---