In the case of Sutton v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 2017-Ohio-105, an Ohio appellate court upheld a four–month suspension of a teacher’s professional teaching license even though an express nexus did not exist between the alleged conduct and the teacher’s profession as an educator.
The offending conduct in this case dates back to the 1970’s, when the teacher was 20 years old and dating a 19 year old female. The two lost contact over the years, but the teacher occasionally tried to contact the female until both her husband and brother instructed the teacher to stop. In 2012, the female went to the police and accused the teacher of stalking her. The teacher did not stop – even after a visit from the police – so the female obtained a protective order. About a year later, the teacher placed a prayer card in the mailbox with the female’s name on it because he felt overwhelmed by his doctoral program. The police arrested the teacher at his church and convicted him of persistent disorderly conduct. Following a hearing, the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) suspended the teacher’s license for four months.
The teacher appealed the decision claiming, among other things, that the hearing officer failed to determine whether a nexus existed between the misdemeanor conviction and the teacher’s professional conduct as a teacher. Specifically, while R.C. 3319.31 provides a laundry list of offenses for which ODE may suspend, revoke, or limit a license; none of the offenses specifically lists misdemeanor convictions or explicitly provides that the teacher’s conduct constitutes conduct unbecoming an educator.
The Ohio appellate court rejected the teacher’s argument and noted that nothing in the statute “expressly require[s] a nexus between an educator’s conduct and the ability to teach or administrate in order for [ODE] to act on an educator’s license.” Sutton at ¶ 20. The appellate court further noted that the Licensure Code of Professional Conduct for Ohio’s Educators provides that conduct unbecoming can include any criminal act.
To read this case, 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.