Gyugo v. Franklin Cnty. Bd. of Developmental Disabilities

Decision Date27 July 2017
Docket NumberNo. 2016–0564.,2016–0564.
Citation2017 Ohio 6953,84 N.E.3d 1021,151 Ohio St.3d 1
Parties GYUGO, Appellant, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, Appellee.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

151 Ohio St.3d 1
84 N.E.3d 1021
2017 Ohio 6953

GYUGO, Appellant,
v.
FRANKLIN COUNTY BOARD OF DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES, Appellee.

No. 2016–0564.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 4, 2017.
Decided July 27, 2017.


84 N.E.3d 1022

McFadden & Winner, Mary Jane McFadden, and Joseph C. Winner, Columbus, for appellant.

Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, and Denise L. DePalma, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Russell S. Bensing, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, Michael J. Hendershot, Chief Deputy Solicitor, and Ryan Harmanis, Deputy Solicitor, urging affirmance for amicus curiae state of Ohio.

Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Anne Marie Sferra, and Jill K. Bigler, Columbus, urging affirmance for amicus curiae Ohio Association of County Boards of Developmental Disabilities.

FRENCH, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Michael Gyugo, challenges the termination of his employment by appellee, Franklin County Board of Developmental Disabilities ("board"), for his failures to disclose his sealed criminal conviction on an application for employment and on applications to renew his registration as an adult-services worker with the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities ("department"). Gyugo maintains that he was not obligated to disclose his sealed conviction because the application questions that required disclosure of sealed convictions violated R.C. 2953.33(B).

{¶ 2} In this opinion, we consider only the questions on the registration applications that explicitly required disclosure of sealed convictions. We hold that those questions did not violate R.C. 2953.33(B),

84 N.E.3d 1023

because the questions bore a direct and substantial relationship to Gyugo's position with the board and to his qualifications for registration. Like the court of appeals, we conclude that Gyugo was not excused from honestly answering those questions. Gyugo not only failed to disclose his conviction when answering those questions on his applications to renew his adult-services registration; in each of the four registration applications, he affirmatively denied the existence of any conviction, even if sealed. Those responses constitute dishonesty. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Tenth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed Gyugo's termination.

Facts and procedural background

{¶ 3} In 1992, an Ohio common pleas court entered an order pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(C)(2) to seal the record of Gyugo's prior conviction for an offense that our record does not identify. According to the parties' stipulation to this court, the sealing order stated that the proceedings in the underlying criminal case were deemed not to have occurred, that the conviction was expunged, and that the records pertaining to the conviction would be confined to the specific uses set forth in R.C. 2953.32 and 2953.35 by the officials named in those statutes.

{¶ 4} In 1995, Gyugo applied for employment as a training specialist with the board. The employment application asked whether Gyugo had ever been convicted of or pleaded guilty to (1) a felony under the Revised Code, (2) a crime under the Revised Code that is a first-degree misdemeanor on the first offense and a felony on subsequent offenses or (3) a substantially equivalent violation of an existing or former state or federal statute. Gyugo answered "No" to each of the three questions. The employment application informed Gyugo that he would be subjected to a criminal-background investigation if he came under final consideration for employment, but the investigation ultimately conducted into Gyugo's criminal background did not reveal his sealed conviction.

{¶ 5} From 1995 to 2013, the board employed Gyugo as a training specialist. His duties included training and instructing employees with developmental disabilities in a vocational/habilitation setting, assisting employees with personal-care needs, and assisting with the development and implementation of training plans.

{¶ 6} In 1995 and again in 2004, Gyugo acknowledged receipt of the board's policy manual, which prescribed the terms and conditions of his employment. The policy manual listed offenses that warranted discipline, up to and including termination, upon a first offense. Offenses warranting termination upon a first offense included "giving false information or withholding pertinent information called for in making application for employment," dishonesty, and failing to maintain registration required for the position.

{¶ 7} Gyugo's position required him to maintain registration with the department as an adult-services worker. To that end, in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008, Gyugo applied to renew his adult-services registration. Each registration application asked whether Gyugo had ever been convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor other than a minor traffic offense and stated that he had to "answer this question even if the record of [his] conviction(s)" had been sealed or expunged. The 2008 application also stated that he had to "answer this question * * * regardless of whether or not the conviction appears on a criminal background check." On each of the four registration applications, Gyugo answered "No" to the question.

{¶ 8} The board first learned of Gyugo's sealed conviction when it completed

84 N.E.3d 1024

criminal-record checks on all its employees in 2013. After affording Gyugo notice and a predisciplinary hearing, the board terminated Gyugo's employment in October 2013 for "[d]ishonesty and other failure of good behavior, i.e., you misrepresented your past criminal record on the application for employment and on each of four applications for certification/registration required for your position."

{¶ 9} Gyugo appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR"). The administrative-law judge found that the registration-application questions at issue were not improper. She concluded that Gyugo's belief that he was not required to disclose his sealed conviction on his 1995 employment application was reasonable because that application did not refer to sealed or expunged records. But she concluded that his reliance on that belief was unreasonable with respect to the registration applications, based on the wording of the application questions and the board's policy manual. She held that Gyugo's failure to disclose his conviction on the registration applications constituted dishonesty and failure of good behavior sufficient to justify his termination. The SPBR overruled Gyugo's objections, adopted the administrative-law judge's recommendation, and affirmed Gyugo's termination.

{¶ 10} Gyugo appealed to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the SPBR's order. The Tenth District likewise affirmed, in a two-to-one decision. The majority rejected Gyugo's argument that the application questions about prior convictions were impermissibly broad, and it held that at least his answer on the 2008 registration application "was plainly dishonest" "in the face of clear language calling for him to disclose his sealed conviction regardless of criminal check results." 2016-Ohio-823, 60 N.E.3d 715, ¶ 17, 23, 26–27.

{¶ 11} This court accepted Gyugo's discretionary appeal. 146 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2016-Ohio-5108, 54 N.E.3d 1268. Gyugo submits the following proposition of law:

An applicant with a criminal conviction that has been sealed pursuant to R.C. 2953.32 is not obliged to disclose it in response to an application question posed in violation of R.C. 2953.33(B)(1) and may not be disciplined for declining to do so.

{¶ 12} We reject the premise of Gyugo's proposition. We hold that the registration-application questions explicitly requiring disclosure of sealed convictions did not violate R.C. 2953.33(B)(1) and that the board could discipline Gyugo for failing to disclose his conviction when answering those questions on the applications that he submitted in 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008.

Analysis

{¶ 13} An appellate court reviews a common pleas court's decision in an administrative appeal to determine whether the common pleas court abused its discretion in determining whether reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supports the administrative order. Pons v. State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). But an appellate court exercises plenary review over questions of law, including questions of statutory interpretation, like those before us here. State v. Straley, 139 Ohio St.3d 339, 2014-Ohio-2139, 11 N.E.3d 1175, ¶ 9.

{¶ 14} Our review in this appeal implicates a confusing array of statutes, including many that the General Assembly amended—in some cases, multiple times—during the course of Gyugo's employment by the board. Because Gyugo premises

84 N.E.3d 1025

his proposition of law on R.C. 2953.32 and 2953.33, we begin our analysis there.

{¶ 15} When a court orders a criminal record sealed, the proceedings in the underlying case "shall be considered not to have occurred," R.C. 2953.32(C)(2), and the order...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Simmons, 17CA16
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 15, 2018
    ...review a trial court's interpretation of a statute and do not defer to its interpretation. E.g., Gyugo v. Franklin Cty. Bd. Of Dev. Disabilities , 151 Ohio St.3d 1, 2017-Ohio-6953, 84 N.E.3d 1021, ¶ 13 ; State v. Vanzandt , 142 Ohio St.3d 223, 2015-Ohio-236, 28 N.E.3d 1267, ¶ 6 ; State v. B......
  • State v. T.J.D.
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • July 17, 2020
    ...15} Although shielded from the public, "[a] sealed conviction is not permanently irretrievable[.]" Gyugo v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities , 151 Ohio St.3d 1, 2017-Ohio-6953, 84 N.E.3d 1021, ¶ 15. Pursuant to R.C. 2953.32(D), certain individuals and agencies may inspect sealed recor......
  • State v. Hampton, Appellate Case No. 2020-CA-5
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 28, 2021
  • Reusch v. City of Toledo
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • May 22, 2020
    ...court reviews a common pleas court's decision in an administrative appeal for an abuse of discretion. Gyugo v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Dev. Disabilities, 151 Ohio St.3d 1, 2017-Ohio-6953, 84 N.E.3d 1021, citing Pons v. State Med. Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621, 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993). However, an ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT