In the case of Faulkner v. City of Cincinnati Civil Serv. Comm’n., 2020-Ohio-6711, the Ohio First District Court of Appeals held that an employee was properly classified as an Administrative Technician based on the employee’s duties.
The employee argued that the classification Administrative Specialist was a more accurate description of the employee’s role and that the 2015 study leading to this classification were untimely and inadequate.
The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that any argument about the 2015 study was irrelevant because the Civil Service Commission did not review the study during the employee’s appeals. The Court of Appeals noted that any additional duties that were identified in the 2015 study were removed and were no longer expected duties of the employee.
The Court of Appeals found that both studies properly classified the employee as an Administrative Technician.
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.