In the case of Crawford v. Kirtland Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2018-Ohio-4569, an Ohio appellate court held that it lacked jurisdiction over the portion of a teacher’s claims relating to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) – specifically the portion of the claim relating to the teacher’s evaluation.
This case involves a teacher who filed a grievance upon the non-renewal of her contract. The teacher was non-renewed due to poor performance evaluations. The school board denied the grievance and neither the teacher nor the union appealed the grievance. Instead, the teacher filed suit against the school board for gender discrimination.
In a previous blog, we discussed how discrimination claims may generally be brought independent of grievance procedures due to their nature as statutory, rather than contractual, rights. This case makes a distinction, however, where the discrimination claim directly relies on the process of evaluations as detailed in the CBA. According to the court, “even when the rights asserted by a plaintiff are created by state law, if the application of the law is dependent on an analysis or interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, the trial court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the matter.” Crawford at ¶ 31. The court further clarified that, in essence, “Crawford’s evaluation claim is a grievance, and, as a result, the grievance procedure, including final and binding arbitration, was her sole remedy.” Crawford at ¶ 41.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
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.