In the case of Jenkins v. Northeastern Local Bd. of Education, 2017-Ohio-5497, an Ohio appellate court overturned a trial court order directing a school board to reinstate a custodian because the custodian failed to properly perfect her appeal of the school board’s decision terminating her contract.
The case has a lengthy and tortured procedural history which began with the school board’s decision to terminate the custodian for using profanity and being verbally abusive to other employees. These procedural issues appear to stem from the fact that both R.C. 3319.081, which governs contracts for nonteaching employees, and the collective bargaining agreement both provided for a post-termination appeals process in the court of common pleas. However, R.C. 3319.081 provides a 10-day deadline to perfect an appeal while the collective bargaining agreement in question did not provide any deadline. As a result, it appears the custodian reviewed the collective bargaining agreement and determined that it trumped the R.C. 3319.081 deadline regarding her termination appeal.
In light of R.C. 3319.081, the Ohio appellate court “conclude[d] that [the custodian] could have perfected her appeal [only] by filing a notice of appeal with [the school board] within ten days of her receipt of notice of [the * * *] decision to terminate her employment, or by filing a notice of appeal in the trial court if the clerk then served [the school board] within the ten-day limit.” Jenkins at ¶ 42. Since the custodian failed to do either, the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. Accordingly, the Ohio appellate court voided the trial court’s order reinstating the custodian and awarding back wages. Jenkins at ¶ 43.
This case serves as yet another important reminder of the critical importance of following procedural timelines in all employment matters. Deadlines matter – particularly in the evaluation, non-renewal, and termination of employees as the statutes that govern these procedures contain strict deadlines. Here, the failure to follow the appeal deadline under R.C. 3319.081 cost a 25-year nonteaching employee her job.
To read the report and recommendation, please click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel
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.