Hartzog v. Ohio State University

• Decision Date: 01 October 1985
• Docket Number: No. 85AP-505,85AP-505
• Citation: 27 OBR 254,500 N.E.2d 362,27 Ohio App.3d 214
• Parties: , 27 O.B.R. 254 HARTZOG, Appellee, v. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals

Page 214

27 Ohio App.3d 214

500 N.E.2d 362, 27 O.B.R. 254

HARTZOG, Appellee, v. OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, Appellant.

No. 85AP-505.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County.

Oct. 1, 1985.

Syllabus by the Court

Where a civil service employee who seeks to be reclassified to a higher classification meets all of the requirements of the lower classification but substantially performs additional job duties required only by the higher classification, he may be classified in the higher classification and a court of appeals may not reverse a finding designating the employee to the higher position unless there is a finding that the lower court abused its discretion.

Frederick L. Berkemer, Columbus, for appellee Shirley Hartzog.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., Moots, Cope & Weinberger Co., L.P.A., and Elizabeth M. Stanton, Columbus, for appellant.

STERN, Judge, retired.

This case is on appeal from a decision of the court of common pleas holding that claimant-appellee is a word processing specialist.

The facts reveal that claimant has been employed by appellant, Ohio State University, for approximately fifteen years. Appellee works in the medical records section of the university. Her primary duty involves typing discharge summaries as dictated by physicians. She was classified as a technical typist until an audit of her position was conducted. She was then reclassified as a word processing operator ("operator"). Appellee, however, sought the higher classification of word processing specialist ("specialist") and, therefore, appealed this ruling. The referee for the State Personnel Board of Review submitted a recommendation that appellee be classified a specialist. He found that, while her job duties are encompassed within the operator classification, she also performs eighty-five to ninety-five percent of the specialist job duties. Therefore, the referee held that appellee was entitled to be classified into the higher position of a specialist.

The State Personnel Board of Review ("board") rejected the referee's recommendation. The board held that appellee's duties most nearly matched those of an operator, considering the overlapping nature of the job classifications and duties of both.

On appeal, the court of common pleas reversed the board. The court held that appellee should be classified as a specialist because she performs substantially all of the specialist's duties. Therefore, the court held that the decision of the board was not supported by "reliable, substantial and probative evidence."

Appellant has raised the following assignments of error:

"1. The court of common pleas committed error as a matter of law when it failed to apply the test of Deist v. Kent State University in determining the employee-appellee's right to be reclassified.

"2. The court of common pleas erred when it reversed the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review when that decision was based on reliable, probative and substantial evidence in the record, and this is especially so when the board's decision was based upon a preponderance of such evidence.

"3. The court of common pleas committed error as a matter of law when it reversed the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review and based its reversal on facts which were not supported by evidence in the record."

Appellant first argues that the lower court erred in failing to apply the test of Deist v. Kent State Univ. (May 23, 1978), Franklin App. No. 78AP-28, unreported. The test of whether an employee is to be reclassified into a higher position was set forth in Deist and further expanded in Smock v. Ferguson (Dec. 17, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-677, unreported. Simply stated, an employee who seeks to be upgraded may meet all of the requirements of the lower classification but substantially perform additional job duties required only by the upgraded classification. The lower court applied this test and found that appellee was performing substantially all of the duties of a specialist.

A comparison of appellee's actual position description, prepared as a result of the job audit and approved by the office of personnel services, with the position...