In the case of Coterel v. Reed, 2016-Ohio-7411, an Ohio appellate court ruled that there was a jury issue regarding whether a township trustee acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment, which would be an exception to the trustees’ immunity, when it was alleged that the trustee engaged in quid pro quo exchanges and unilaterally ordered a work stoppage at a racetrack based on a potential zoning violation.
The plaintiff, a local business owner who owned a racetrack, alleged that the trustee did “numerous favors for [him], saving [him] a substantial sum of money.” Coterel at ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleged “that in exchange for those favors, [the trustee] expected money or other favors in return, in the form of campaign contributions, referral fees, discounts on sales, and a job for [the trustee’s] wife at the racetrack.” Coterel at ¶ 3. Their relationship hit the rocks when the plaintiff refused to fire an employee that the trustee believed was harassing his wife. In retaliation, the trustee allegedly took action to delay construction at the plaintiff’s racetrack for several months.
The Ohio appellate court found that the record in this case contained sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury might find that the trustee acted manifestly outside the scope of his employment, with a malicious purpose, in bad faith, or in a wanton or reckless manner, all of which are exceptions to the trustee’s individual immunity, when the trustee allegedly ordered the contractor to stop work on the construction project and made statements that were adverse to the plaintiff’s reputation and business.
While the ultimate issue of whether the trustee acted outside the scope of his employment will be determined by a jury, it is clear that a major factor in the appellate court ruling against the trustee is that his alleged actions, if true, clearly exceeded the scope of his authority. Specifically, township trustees are not authorized to engage in quid pro quo exchanges involving governmental resources and certainly do not have the authority to unilaterally order a work stoppage based on a potential zoning violation.
While this case provides an extreme example of governmental abuse, governmental officials must be aware that they risk losing their individual immunity when they perform actions that could arguably exceed the scope of their authority.
To read this case, 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.