Lewis v. Benson

• Decision Date: 28 November 1979
• Docket Number: No. 79-182,79-182
• Citation: 60 Ohio St.2d 66,397 N.E.2d 396
• Parties: , 14 O.O.3d 269 LEWIS, Appellee, v. BENSON, Supt., Appellant.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 66

60 Ohio St.2d 66

397 N.E.2d 396, 14 O.O.3d 269

LEWIS, Appellee, v. BENSON, Supt., Appellant.

No. 79-182.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Nov. 28, 1979.

Syllabus by the Court

In the absence of a statute requiring it, interest cannot be adjudged against the state on an award of back pay to a wrongfully discharged state civil service employee.

Lawrence P. Benson, Superintendent of the Toledo Mental Health Center, appellant herein, removed Thomas H. Lewis, appellee, from his state civil service position at such center on July 8, 1976, for alleged failure of good behavior and neglect of duty. Upon appeal, the State Personnel Board of Review affirmed such removal.

Lewis appealed the board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Lucas County, which reversed the board's decision and ordered Lewis reinstated with back pay upon which six percent interest was allowed. Benson appealed the portion of that decision which ordered interest at six percent to the Court of Appeals which affirmed, in a divided decision, the allowance of such interest.

The cause is now before this court upon the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Ronald H. Janetzke, Columbus, for appellee.

William J. Brown, Atty. Gen., and Phyllis R. Streitel, Columbus, for appellant.

LYNCH, Justice.

The issue in this case is whether the trial court erred in allowing interest on an award of back pay to a wrongfully discharged state civil service employee.

Appellee, Lewis, cites numerous National Labor Relations Act cases in which wrongfully discharged employees of private employers were allowed interest on the back pay awarded to them. E. g., N.L.R.B. v. Gray-Grimes Tool Co. (C.A. 6, 1977), 557 F.2d 1233, 1234; Isis Plumbing & Heating Co. (1962), 138 N.L.R.B. No. 97, 51 LRRM 1122. He urges this court to adopt the same principle of law for wrongfully discharged state civil service employees.

However, the law makes a distinction on the liability for payment of interest between a private corporation and a sovereign state. The fourth paragraph of the syllabus in State ex rel. Parrott v. Board of Public Works (1881), 36 Ohio St. 409, reads as follows:

"In the absence of a statute requiring it, or a promise to pay it, interest cannot be adjudged against the state for delay in the payment of money."

Indus. Comm. v. Phillips (1926), 114 Ohio St. 607, 623-624, 151 N.E. 769, is in accord with the Parrott case.

There is no statutory authority for an award of interest on back pay for a wrongfully discharged state civil service employee. A public employee holds his office as a matter of law and not of contract. Fuldauer v. Cleveland (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 114, 290 N.E.2d 546.

Most states have held that in the absence of a statute authorizing it, or a lawful contract requiring it, a state is not liable to pay interest on its debts. Maurice L. Bein, Inc., v. Housing Authority (1958), 157 Cal.App.2d 670, 321 P.2d 753; Brown v. State Highway Comm. (1970), 206 Kan. 49, 476 P.2d 233; East Orange v. Palmer (1968), 52 N.J. 329, 245 A.2d 327; Purdy Estate (1972), 447 Pa. 439, 291 A.2d 93; Bond v. State (1967), 70...