Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Category: Case Updates

Court decisions from across the country have implications right here in Ohio. Here is a selection of recent cases, and why they matter.

Right-to-Sue Letters Must State the Parties in a Complaint

In the case of Jones v. City of Cincinnati, S.D.Ohio, No. 1:22-cv-530, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69374 (April 19, 2023), a federal district court held that the applicant could not sue the police department when the right-to-sue letter issued by the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission (“EEOC”) did not name the party. In this case, the […]

CBA Interpretation Disputes are not Unfair Labor Practices

In the case of State ex rel. Intl. Union of Operating Engineers, Local 20 v. State Employment Relations Bd., 2023-Ohio-1253, an appellate court held that an employment board did not have probable cause to investigate a school for an unfair labor practice under R.C. 4117.11 for a contractual dispute relating to the union and school’s […]

Appellants Must Claim Plain Error in an Appeal

In the case of State ex rel. Ames v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 2023-Ohio-1247, an appellate court held that the requester could not appeal the trial court’s adoption of the magistrate’s decision because the objector did not object to a magistrate’s decision or claim plain error. In this case, the requestor argued that the […]

Requests for Arbitration Must Follow CBA Procedures

In the case of Wright State Univ. v. Am. Assn. of Univ. Professors, Wright State Chapter, 2023-Ohio-1238, an appellate court held that the union’s request for arbitration was invalid because an arbitration request must adhere to the timing and arbitrator selection provisions in a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). In this case, the union argued that […]

Specific Facts Needed to Sue on Tortious Interference Claim

In the case of Weiler v. DLR Group, 2023-Ohio-1221, an appellate court held that an employee could not sue a former employer as the employee had not pled enough facts to show that the former employer tortiously interfered with the employee’s subsequent employment or the employee’s attempts to gain further employment after the employee was […]