The case of Walker v. Piazza, 2016-Ohio-7996, demonstrates why school officials should aim to be more like Joe Friday from “Dragnet” and less like Inspector Clouseau from “The Pink Panther” when conducting internal investigations as the school district found itself without immunity under R.C. Chapter 2744 after conducting an inadequate investigation.
The issues in Walker began when a maintenance secretary, Julie Piazza (“Piazza”), elected to try her hand at private investigation work. The Plaintiff, Frances Walker (“Walker”), worked a split shift as a bus driver for the school district. Walker used the time between her shifts to work as the fiscal officer for the township. Piazza, however, became increasingly suspicious that Walker was using her paid sick leave with the district to work for the township. Accordingly, Piazza arranged for a third-party to contact the township and check on Walker’s availability during one of her paid absences. This, seemingly perfect plan, backfired horribly on Piazza when Walker utilized the advanced investigative technique of caller identification to trace the call and, after contacting the Sheriff’s Department, learned that Piazza actually employed a registered sex offender to check in on her.
Needless to say, Walker was displeased and complained to the administration. The administration responded by conducted an investigation into both Walker and and Piazza and actually issuing Walker a verbal reprimand. Walker, in turn, sued the school district and the employees involved.
Typically, statutory immunity would shield the school district from the claims asserted by Walker. However, R.C. 2744.09(B) provides an exception to political subdivision immunity for “[c]ivil actions by an employee * * * against his political subdivision.” Defendants attempted to argue that this exception did not apply in this matter because Walker’s allegations were directed at Piazza’s investigation, which she did on her own and without any request or suggestion from the administration. The state appellate court did not buy this argument noting that Walker’s allegations also pertained to the investigation that the school district conducted following this incident and Walker’s discipline.
Specifically, Walker presented evidence that the person who conducted the investigation into Piazza’s conduct was friends with Piazza and explicitly excluded another employee who assists in internal investigations. In addition, Walker presented evidenced that the investigator asked Piazza to submit a written statement but also wrote: (1) “Please do not lose any sleep or let this ruin your beautiful long weekend”; and (2) “DON’T WORRY ABOUT IT THOUGH.” Walker at ¶ 26.
Finally, Walker presented evidence that there were discrepancies between the written statement that Piazza provided the investigator and the Sheriff’s Department report, that the investigator never read the Sheriff’s report, never attempted to secure a copy for her records, never attempted to speak to other witnesses, and never asked Piazza to account for the discrepancies between her written statement and the Sheriff’s Department report. Indeed, the court’s rendition of the facts reads like a “How To” manual on conducting a bad investigation.
Based on this evidence, the Walker court concluded that “Walker’s claims against [the school district] arise out of her employment relationship” for purposes of the R.C. 2744.09(B) exception because the allegations regarding the investigation, and subsequent conduct, were related to Walker’s employment. Walker at ¶ 31.
To read this case, please click here.
And, for information on how to properly conduct an employee investigation, please feel free to contact one of our McGown & Markling attorneys.
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.