In the case of Miller v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 2017-Ohio-7197, an Ohio appellate court found that the Ohio Department of Education (“ODE”) did not abuse its discretion when it denied a pupil activity permit to a volunteer coach who had previously been court-martialed and imprisoned.
This case began with the volunteer’s application “to ODE for a three-year pupil activity permit [* * *] so that [he] could be certified to assist his wife [* * *] who was the head coach for the women’s basketball program.” Miller at ¶ 3. While the applicant “sought to volunteer for an unpaid position only,” R.C. 3319.303 requires an individual who does not hold a valid educator license, certificate, or permit to obtain a pupil activity permit from ODE in order to coach, supervise, or direct a pupil-activity program. Miller at ¶ 3. ODE denied the application and, after a hearing, passed a resolution permanently denying the applicant’s eligibility for a pupil activity permit.
The Ohio appellate court found that the record contained substantial evidence supporting ODE’s conclusion that (1) the applicant’s convictions, which occurred as a result of a military court-martial, involved a theft offense that barred his employment and (2) that the convictions also constituted conduct unbecoming the teaching profession. Please note that, while the applicant was not a teacher he was applying for a permit through ODE.
The decision contains helpful guidance for school officials regarding the rehabilitation of employees convicted of disqualifying offenses. Specifically, the Ohio Administrative Code contains three regulations that outline the criteria by which professional, classified, and transportation employees who are convicted of otherwise disqualifying offenses may be “rehabilitated” and deemed eligible for employment or licensure. See Ohio Adm.Code 3301-20-01 (professional employees); Ohio Adm.Code 3301-20-03 (classified employees); Ohio Adm.Code 3301-83-234 (transportation employees).
First: The appellate court emphasized that “[a]n individual’s conviction of serious crimes does not mean he or she could not be rehabilitated or serve as a positive role model for others after serving the sentence.” Miller at ¶ 56. Frequently, school officials immediately disqualify a candidate simply on the basis of a prior conviction without seriously considering the rehabilitation criteria. Here, there was “evidence in the record that [the applicant] ha[d] been a positive influence on youth in the area, through volunteer work as a youth director for his church, through volunteer work done for several years with the Dayton Early College Academy (a high school for inner city youth), and through his support of various troubled youth.” Miller at ¶ 56.
Second: It is the applicant’s duty to provide evidence that the conditions for rehabilitation have been met. The burden does not fall on school officials to request such proof.
Third: Even if the applicant provides such proof, the school district still has the discretion to accept this evidence. If the school district “determines that the proof offered by the applicant is inconclusive or does not establish proof of rehabilitation, the applicant shall not be hired.” Millar at ¶ 59.
Fourth: If you an employee seeking rehabilitation, it is, perhaps, best to demonstrate your reform by actually taking responsibility for your actions. As the appellate court noted in this case, while the applicant “facially admitted responsibility, his testimony, in reality, blamed others and was inconsistent with information in the Air Force documents.” Miller at ¶ 58. The Ohio appellate court determined that, “[u]nder the circumstances, one could reasonably question whether [the plaintiff] was sufficiently rehabilitated at that point in time.” Miller at ¶ 58.
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.