In the case of DeVito v. Clear Fork Valley Local Schools Bd. of Edn., 2022-Ohio-3894, the Appellate Court held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion in upholding the termination of a principal after the principal received a letter that set forth the grounds for the termination, a hearing was held before a referee who recommended the termination for good and just cause, and the Court of Common Pleas affirmed the termination.
Here, the principal argued that (1) the board violated her rights under R.C. 3319.16 by failing to set a time for the hearing within thirty days of receipt of the written demand and departing from the specification of grounds given for the termination; (2) the board was obligated to give her an opportunity to change her conduct; (3) the board was required to consider her employment record in making a decision of termination; and (4) the order of her termination was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence. The Appellate Court disagreed with the principal.
In support of its decision, the Appellate Court first reasoned that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the principal “‘was provided sufficient notice of the allegations against her to enable her to prepare and present her defenses’” because she failed to argue in what ways she suffered any prejudice. DeVito at ¶ 29, 31. The Appellate Court next explained that there is no precedent that exists that establishes that a school board considering termination of an educator must give that educator the opportunity to change her alleged behavior in all circumstances, and in this case the principal’s conduct was conscious wrongful behavior. The Appellate Court next explained that the school board was not required to consider the principal’s employment record in making a decision of termination because the referee’s report referenced her employment record in many places and the principal did not have a longstanding positive employment record to consider in mitigation of her conduct. Lastly, the Appellate Court found that the order of the principal’s termination was supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence because the referee wrote a 237-page report and recommendation regarding the termination and was thorough, precise, and clear.
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.