In the case Gregory v. Cuyahoga Cty., 2020-Ohio-2714, 2020 Ohio App. LEXIS 1674, an Ohio appellate court found that there was a lack of evidence supporting the county employee’s termination from her position as a supervisor within the county fiscal office was improper, because the trial court’s decision substituted its judgment for that of the administrative agency. The sole question before the trial court was whether a preponderance of the evidence demonstrated that the employee’s conduct amounted to a “major infraction,” and the evidence was undisputed on that point since the employee conceded that she failed to follow the call-in procedure for two consecutive work days. In essence, the trial court made a policy decision limiting the severity of the call-in infractions contrary to the employer’s own policies and procedures manual, and that was beyond the scope of the administrative review process.
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.