In the case of State ex rel. Thelen v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 2022-Ohio-2883, the Appellate Court granted a teacher’s writ of mandamus to compel the State Employment Relations Board (“SERB”) to investigate claims against the school district for retaliation. The Appellate Court held that the teacher sufficiently alleged an unfair labor practice pursuant to R.C. 4117.11(A)(3) and SERB was under a clear, legal duty to investigate the retaliation claims.
A person will be entitled to a writ of mandamus if they can evidence each of the foregoing elements: (1) there is a clear legal right to the relief prayed for, (2) SERB is under a corresponding clear, legal duty to perform the requested acts, and (3) there is no plain and adequate legal remedy.
Here, the teacher argues that the school refused to hire the teacher for the vacant position the teacher applied for in violation of R.C. 4117.11(A)(3) and that the retaliation claim was separate from the grievance. SERB argues that the teacher did not have a legal right to the position that the teacher applied for, and that the retaliation claim was addressed during the arbitration proceedings of the grievance. The Court agreed with the teacher.
In support of its decision, the Court first reasoned that although the teacher did not have a legal right to the vacated position that the teacher applied for, whether the school retaliated against the teacher in violation of R.C. 4117.11(A)(3) was a separate issue before SERB that SERB failed to investigate. Second, the Court found that the teacher’s retaliation claim was in fact separate from the grievance because the arbitration proceedings addressed whether the school violated the CBA, not the retaliation claim.
As a result, the Court held that SERB failed to investigate the retaliation claim pursuant to R.C. 4117.11(A)(3) and ordered the trial court to grant the teacher’s writ of mandamus compelling SERB to investigate the teacher’s retaliation claim.
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.