In the case of Muldowney v. Portage Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2018-Ohio-2579, an Ohio appellate court determined that a county sheriff was permitted to litigate his discrimination claims even after an arbitrator found that the sheriff had been terminated for just cause under the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”).
In this case, the sheriff, who suffered from sleep apnea, was assigned to work the third shift. The sheriff received doctor’s notes indicating that his condition would conflict with working third shift. He continued to protest his assigned hours and a disciplinary hearing was issued against the sheriff for insubordination and incompetency. The disciplinary hearing determined that the sheriff was incompetent as he could not work the hours required for his position and he was terminated. The sheriff opted to arbitrate the termination decision through the CBA’s grievance process and the arbitrator determined that the sheriff was terminated for just cause.
Following the arbitration decision, the sheriff brought discrimination claims against the county and the county moved to dismiss the claims because they had already been decided in arbitration. The sheriff argued that his discrimination claims were not covered by the CBA because they were unique to him and not shared by his coworkers under the CBA.
An Ohio appellate court agreed with the sheriff, stating that the arbitration provision under this particular CBA did not encompass discrimination claims. However, the Ohio appellate court emphasized that an individual agreement to arbitrate the sheriff’s discrimination claims or an explicit waiver of the sheriff’s discrimination claim rights in the CBA would circumvent this result. Thus, it would appear that a public office could limit the resolution of potential discrimination claims to the grievance/arbitration process by negotiating an explicit waiver of the right to pursue discrimination claims in a court.
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.