In the case of McClendon v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 2017-Ohio-187, an Ohio appellate court found that there was reliable, probative, and substantial evidence to support the resolution the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) to permanently revoke a teacher’s education license due to the alleged seriousness of her conduct.
The offending conduct involved a 38 year teaching veteran employed as a kindergarten teacher and who also taught an after-school tutoring program. The issue arose because the guardian of one of the students in the teacher’s kindergarten class could not pick up the student by 2:30 p.m. due to her work schedule. Rather than leave the student in the school office, the teacher allowed the student to accompany her to the after-school tutoring program. At some point, the teacher noticed that the student was no longer with the group. When the teacher could not locate the student, she assumed that the guardian or a designated caregiver picked the student up. The teacher did not take any other steps to look for the student or advise school personnel that the student was gone. The guardian found the student walking alone several blocks away from the school trying to cross a busy street.
The Ohio appellate court found that “[i]n light of this evidence, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the Board’s decision that McClendon had engaged in conduct unbecoming to her profession was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence.” McClendon at ¶ 37. The Ohio appellate court further found that, “although the disciplinary guidelines in the licensure code range from a suspension of one day to five years for disciplinary actions involving inappropriate supervision of a student, [ODE] has the authority to determine that a penalty outside the range of disciplinary guidelines is more appropriate in an individual case based upon the aggravating” circumstances. McClendon at ¶ 50. Here, the hearing officer found several aggravating circumstances to justify the imposition of the extreme sanction levied against the teacher – notably the teacher’s failure to express any concern for the student’s safety and failure to accept responsibility for the incident. McClendon at ¶ 50.
A side issue that the Ohio appellate court addressed involved the 30 day deadline for a teacher to request a hearing before ODE. The Ohio appellate court found that ODE must actually receive the request for a hearing within 30 days of ODE mailing the notice of the opportunity for a hearing. Placing the request in the mail within 30 days, as the teacher did here, is insufficient according to the Ohio appellate court. Ohio educators embroiled in ODE’s disciplinary process should pay particular attention to this element of the Ohio appellate court’s ruling because, as the dissent points out, “[t]he statute [entitling public employees to a hearing] does not [actually] state that the request for a hearing must be received in the office of ODE within 30 days.” McClendon at ¶ 65. Educators who simply read the statutory language may find themselves denied the opportunity to request a hearing before ODE based on this ruling – as happened to the teacher in this case.
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.