Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

A Governing Board Did Not Breach An Employment Contract By Implementing A Reduction In Force

In the case of Ruez v. Lake Cty. Educational Serv. Ctr., 2017-Ohio-4125, an Ohio appellate court found that a governing board did not breach its contract with a teacher when it implemented a reduction in force under R.C. 3319.17.

The case involves an intervention specialist employed as a teacher by an educational service center (“ESC”). Two of the school districts that contracted for the intervention specialist’s services notified the ESC that “they would require fewer hours of pre-school intervention services for the 2015-2016 school year. As a consequence,” the ESC suspended the intervention specialist’s contract, in part, under R.C. 3319.17. Ruez at ¶ 3. When the ESC could not find extra hours for the intervention specialist, she retired and filed a complaint against the ESC alleging, among other things, a breach of her employment contract.

The trial court rejected the breach of contract claim finding that the ESC had the right under R.C. 3319.17, the statute governing the reduction in force of teaching contracts, to make a reasonable reduction in the number of teachers it employs for financial reasons. On appeal, the intervention specialist argued that R.C. 3319.17(B)(3), which “allows an educational service center to reduce the number of teachers it employs when a school district terminates or fails to renew its contract with the service center,” applied to her. Ruez at ¶ 19. The intervention specialist noted that neither of the school districts which the ESC assigned her to terminated its contract with the ESC. “Without exactly saying so, [the intervention specialist] implied that [the ESC] could only reduce her hours if one of the school districts had terminated its contract with” the ESC. Ruez at ¶ 19.

The Ohio appellate court rejected this argument finding that R.C. 3319.17(B)(1), which permits ESCs to reduce the number of teachers that it employs for financial reasons, “authorized [the ESC] to take the action it did due to the reduction in funding for [the intervention specialist’s] function by the [* * *] school districts.” Ruez at ¶ 20. Accordingly, the Ohio appellate court found that the ESC did not breach its contract with the employee.

To read the report and recommendation, please click here

Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.