In the case of Matthews v. Springfield-Clark CTC Bd. of Edn., 2023-Ohio-1304, an appellate court held that (1) the janitor received due process in regard to the janitor’s termination when the janitor could present evidence in the janitor’s termination hearing and (2) the reviewing court should give deference to the board’s determination when the board heard from the witnesses and the reviewing court did not hear from the witnesses.
In this case, the school board argued that (1) the janitor was given sufficient due process because the janitor received notice of the superintendent’s decision to terminate employment and a hearing in which the janitor was permitted to bring an attorney who could present testimony, examine witnesses and contest the board’s accusations; and (2) the trial court did not give any deference to the board’s decisions and substituted its judgment for that of the board. In response, the janitor argued that (1) due process was not given because the janitor was not allowed to cross-examine a key witness at the termination hearing and (2) the board’s decision to terminate the janitor’s employment was unjust because there were other options before the board to try to rectify the janitor’s behavior before terminating employment. The appellate court agreed with the board.
In support of its decision in favor of the board, the appellate court explained that the employee’s failure to offer any valid explanation to the allegation supported that the employee’s violations were sufficient to justify termination. The appellate court further explained that the board, as a finder of fact, was in a better position to finding the credibility of witnesses than the trial court, so the trial court should tend to defer issues of fact to the board instead of substituting the court’s own judgement.
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.