State ex rel. Antonucci v. Youngstown City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 99-1173.

• Decision Date: 26 January 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-1173.,99-1173.
• Parties: THE STATE EX REL. ANTONUCCI, APPELLANT, v. YOUNGSTOWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

87 Ohio St.3d 564

722 NE 2d 69

THE STATE EX REL. ANTONUCCI, APPELLANT, v. YOUNGSTOWN CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION, APPELLEE.

No. 99-1173.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted December 15, 1999.

Decided January 26, 2000.

Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy & Macala Co., L.P.A., and Steven L. Paulson, for appellant.

Ruth, Blair, Roberts, Strasfeld & Lodge, L.P.A., and James E. Roberts, for appellee.

Means, Bichimer, Burkholder & Baker Co., L.P.A., and Katherine A. Francis, urging affirmance for amicus curiae, Ohio School Boards Association.

Per Curiam.

Antonucci asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the writ of mandamus. At issue is whether R.C. 3319.10 confers a legal right for certain substitute teachers to be paid a salary commensurate with that afforded regular teachers pursuant to an adopted teachers' salary schedule based on their level of education and years of experience. Antonucci claims that it does, whereas the board contends that R.C. 3319.10 requires only that it pay these substitute teachers the minimum salary on the adopted teachers' salary schedule.

R.C. 3319.10 provides that "[a] teacher employed as a substitute with an assignment to one specific teaching position shall after sixty days of service be granted sick leave, visiting days, and other local privileges granted to regular teachers including a salary not less than the minimum salary on the current adopted salary schedule." (Emphasis added.)

Our paramount concern in construing a statute is the legislative intent in its enactment. Rice v. CertainTeed Corp. (1999), 84 Ohio St.3d 417, 419, 704 N.E.2d 1217, 1218. We must first look at the statutory language, and words and phrases used shall be read in context and construed according to the rules of grammar and common usage. Id.; R.C. 1.42.

R.C. 3319.10 confers to long-term substitute teachers certain "local privileges" afforded regular teachers, including a "salary not less than the minimum salary on the current adopted salary schedule." Therefore, the plain language of R.C. 3319.10 manifestly requires only that school boards pay such substitute teachers a salary equal to or greater than the minimum salary paid regular teachers, which, according to statewide practice, is at the BA/0 rate. Antonucci was paid at this rate during the period at issue.

As the court of appeals held, "if the legislature intended for substitute teachers to be credited for their prior experience, the legislature would have so stated that, after 60 days of service in a specific teaching position a substitute is entitled to specifically enumerated fringe benefits and other local privileges granted to regular teachers including a salary equal to the salary on the current adopted salary schedule consistent with the teacher's experience." (Emphasis sic.) The General Assembly has specified that years of service be included in determining teachers' salaries when it has so intended. See R.C. 3317.13 and 3317.14.

In other words, "[i]t is significant that the General Assembly did not require that such substitutes be paid at a rate equal to that for regular teachers with comparable experience, but only that they be paid at a rate no less than the minimum salary on the current adopted salary schedule for regular teachers." 1976 Ohio Atty. Gen Ops. No. 76-068, at 2-234; see, generally, 1 Baker's Ohio School Law (1998-1999 Ed.) 332, Section 7.21.

We find the foregoing rationale persuasive. Although ...