Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Educ.

Decision Date01 October 2021
Docket NumberNo. 29144,29144
Parties Jennifer MARTCHEVA, Plaintiff-Appellant v. DAYTON BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

PETER K. NEWMAN, Atty. Reg. No. 0010468, 594 Garden Road, Dayton, Ohio 45419, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant.

DAVID J. LAMPE, Atty. Reg. No. 0072890, JASON R. STUCKEY, Atty. Reg. No. 0091220, AARON ROTHEY, Atty. Reg. No. 0098825, 312 North Patterson Boulevard, Suite 200, Dayton, Ohio 45402, Attorneys for Defendants-Appellees.

OPINION

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} This appeal stems from an employment dispute between Plaintiff-Appellant Jennifer Martcheva and Defendant-Appellee the Dayton Board of Education ("BOE"). Various school employees and students are also parties to the case. Martcheva appeals the judgment of the trial court sustaining the BOE's and individual defendantsmotions for summary judgment while overruling her related motion for summary judgment against the BOE and named defendants. Martcheva also appeals the trial court's judgment in relation to its determination of damages pursuant to her administrative appeal. Finally, Martcheva appeals the trial court's judgment granting attorney fees to the BOE. For the reasons that follow, the trial court's judgments will be affirmed.

I. Facts and Procedural History

{¶ 2} Martcheva was hired by the BOE in 2009 to teach social studies at Louise Troy Elementary School. She taught seventh and eighth graders there for three years before being transferred to Charity Adams Earley Academy for Girls ("Charity Adams") after the 2011-2012 school year. At Charity Adams, Martcheva taught seventh and eighth grade social studies through the 2017-2018 school year. She then transitioned to teaching fourth grade, beginning in 2018-2019.

{¶ 3} As a fourth-grade teacher, Martcheva co-taught with Kelli Vukovic-Burkhardt. Each woman had her own homeroom class but focused on different subjects; Martcheva taught language arts and social studies while Vukovic-Burkhardt taught math and science. Their classes switched twice during the day.

{¶ 4} In the fall of 2018, several girls (all from Vukovic-Burkhardt's homeroom class) made accusations against Martcheva. On October 1, 2018, Student One told her mother, Tequina Clark, that Martcheva said she wanted to strangle a girl in her class because the girl would not stop talking. Student One also informed her mother that she heard Martcheva say she wanted to bring a gun to school. According to her mother, Student One independently told four adult family members the same story.

{¶ 5} On October 2, 2018, Clark informed Carla Goins, the school's principal, and America Henson, the assistant principal, about the allegations. Student One confirmed to Goins and Henson that it was Martcheva who made the statements and that she was fearful. The administrators had Clark and Student One write statements, and Student One provided the names of other students who may have heard the comments.

{¶ 6} After the meeting with Student One and Clark, Goins notified the district's human resources department. Goins was instructed to collect statements from anyone who may have overheard the comments made by Martcheva.

{¶ 7} On October 3, 2018, Henson spoke with the five students that Student One suggested might have heard the comments. Henson asked the students open-ended questions and Students Two and Three stated that Martcheva had made threats against students. After speaking with them, Henson directed Student Two and Student Three to go to the school resource officer to write down statements. Student Two stated that Martcheva said she was going to use a shotgun to kill herself. Student Three's statement focused on three things: (1) that Martcheva wanted to strangle a particular student because she was making her mad; (2) that Martcheva was going to bring a shotgun to school to shoot herself in the head; and (3) that if a particular student were Martcheva's child, she would whoop that girl so bad she would go to jail.

{¶ 8} Henson testified that she believed the students, and that one thing in particular stood out – each of the students used the word "shotgun" in their accounts, a term rarely used in the African American community. Goins also testified to that peculiarity and asserted that she, too, did not believe the girls had made up their statements.

{¶ 9} After reading the girls’ statements, Goins once again contacted human resources (HR). She explained that there were three students with corroborating accounts and then turned the statements over to HR. After reviewing the documents, HR determined that the allegations were serious enough to merit placing Martcheva on paid administrative leave pending an investigation.

{¶ 10} The same day, HR informed Martcheva that serious allegations had been made against her and that she would be placed on paid administrative leave. Martcheva testified that she was extremely confused as to why she was being put on leave, and once it was explained to her that there was an allegation related to a shotgun, she clarified that she had talked about how shotguns are used for hunting in a recent lesson about Ohio history. She was informed that an investigation would be conducted and a determination about her future would be made based on the findings. Martcheva was then escorted from the building.

{¶ 11} Later that day, Martcheva sent the following email to David Romick, the teachers’ union president, to provide further context about her situation.

Late last week (Wednesday and Thursday) I was teaching a lesson over Ohio History. The passage being taught dealt with "Ohio and the Midwest" pgs. 14-15. The passage discusses Western v. Eastern Ohio – rural areas and their livelihoods, as well as Cities like Dayton in the West and their livelihoods – natural resources v. resources – statewide. I mentioned that I grew up on a farm in Eastern KY much like Eastern Ohio with coal mining and country ways of life. I told a story about my dad being an educator, pastor, and a hunter by sport. That he had taught all of us kids (3) how to shoot a gun even when we were small. And if [sic] fact he taught my own kids how to shoot skeet when they were in fourth grade. We discussed that I lived on a farm 20 miles away from the nearest grocery store. And that I have eaten wild game for dinner many times. * * *

{¶ 12} The internal investigation was conducted by Tracy Hines, one of the district's school safety liaisons. Hines testified that neither the students nor Martcheva were interviewed because that had already been done, and to check the students’ credibility, she inquired about their disciplinary records. None of the girls had been suspended, but one had a discipline referral. After reviewing the statements given by the students, principals, and Clark, Hines summarized the allegations in a memorandum that was submitted to HR on October 16, 2018.

{¶ 13} The district conducted a pre-disciplinary hearing on October 30, 2018. In a report filed on November 16, 2018, the hearing officer, Barbara Stahl, recommended that Martcheva be fired, and on November 19, 2018, Martcheva was informed of the intent of the BOE to terminate her contract. On December 18, 2018, the BOE voted to suspend Martcheva, without pay or fringe benefits, pending the termination proceedings.

{¶ 14} On November 23, 2018, Martcheva requested an administrative hearing with a referee at the Ohio Department of Education. The hearing was held before referee John Butz on March 13-14, 2019, and in his May 16, 2019, decision, Butz made several findings. The referee determined that the BOE had failed to conduct a full and fair investigation into the allegations made against Martcheva, going as far as stating that "the investigation in this matter was inadequate and woefully flawed." He found that no further meaningful investigation was conducted after the students made their statements, that Martcheva was never interviewed by anyone involved in the investigation, and that her pre-disciplinary hearing was conducted by a district employee who was not impartial. As to the allegations, Butz found that the students’ statements were not entirely consistent and that Martcheva "categorically denied" all the allegations against her.

{¶ 15} Ultimately, Butz concluded that the record did not support a finding of good and just cause to terminate Martcheva and recommended that her contract not be terminated. Despite the conclusion of the referee, the BOE voted to reject the referee's decision, and Martcheva's contract was terminated on September 17, 2019.

{¶ 16} Through an amended complaint, Martcheva appealed the termination to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas. The complaint also contained numerous claims: (1) pattern or practice of retaliatory harassment; (2) aiding and abetting discrimination; (3) wrongful discharge in violation of public policy; (4) breach of implied contract; (5) promissory estoppel; (6) fraud and misrepresentation; (7) defamation; (8) tortious interference with a contract, and (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress against numerous BOE-affiliated parties. Martcheva also sought punitive damages, attorney fees, and a writ of mandamus. On November 17, 2020, finding that there was not "substantial and credible evidence to support the board's decision to terminate Martcheva," the trial court ordered the BOE to "immediately reinstate Martcheva to a teaching position comparable to the position [she] had at the time she was terminated. * * *. [T]he Board shall compensate Martcheva for any loss of salary [she] has incurred[.]" November 17, 2020, Decision and Entry at 33. The court did not determine damages in its judgment entry.

{¶ 17} A damages hearing was held on January 22, 2021, and both sides were permitted to file post-hearing briefs. Shortly thereafter, the parties filed motions for summary judgment, which the trial court decided on April 14, 2021. The trial court granted the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Addison Holdings, LLC v. Fox, Byrd & Co.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • December 20, 2022
    ...refer to fraud and intentional misrepresentation as separate claims for relief. Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Education, 2021-Ohio-3524, 179 N.E.3d 687, ¶ 58, 61 (2nd Dist.) (recognizing two separate claims for fraud and intentional misrepresentation and defining elements necessary to prove ea......
  • Townsend v. City of Kettering
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • August 5, 2022
    ...it is initiated, in part, to further or promote the master's business." 194 N.E.3d 465 Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Edn. , 2021-Ohio-3524, 179 N.E.3d 687, ¶ 80 (2d Dist.), quoting Jackson v. McDonald , 144 Ohio App.3d 301, 307, 760 N.E.2d 24 (5th Dist.2001). "For an act to fall within the sco......
  • Townsend v. City of Kettering
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • August 5, 2022
    ...employment if it is initiated, in part, to further or promote the master's business." Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Edn., 2021 -Ohio-3524, 179 N.E.3d 687, ¶ 80 (2d Dist.), quoting Jackson v. McDonald, 144 Ohio App.3d 301, 307, 760 N.E.2d 24 (5th Dist.2001). "For an act to fall within the scope......
  • Townsend v. City of Kettering
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • August 5, 2022
    ...employment if it is initiated, in part, to further or promote the master's business." Martcheva v. Dayton Bd. of Edn., 2021 -Ohio-3524, 179 N.E.3d 687, ¶ 80 (2d Dist.), quoting Jackson v. McDonald, 144 Ohio App.3d 301, 307, 760 N.E.2d 24 (5th Dist.2001). "For an act to fall within the scope......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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