State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of Review, No. 98-2570

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM; MOYER
• Citation: 85 Ohio St.3d 640,710 N.E.2d 706
• Parties: The STATE ex rel. BAKER et al., Appellants, v. STATE PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW et al., Appellees.
• Decision Date: 16 June 1999
• Docket Number: No. 98-2570

Page 640

85 Ohio St.3d 640 710 N.E.2d 706 The STATE ex rel. BAKER et al., Appellants,
v.
STATE PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW et al., Appellees. No. 98-2570. Supreme Court of Ohio. Submitted May 18, 1999.
Decided June 16, 1999.

[710 N.E.2d 707] In March 1991, the newly elected Columbiana County Auditor, appellee herein, fired appellants, Judy Baker and Bonnie Johnson, both of whom had worked for the auditor's predecessor. Baker and Johnson appealed their terminations to appellee State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR"). Following a hearing, an SPBR administrative law judge ("ALJ") issued a report finding that Baker and Johnson were unclassified employees because they were fiduciaries to the auditor under R.C. 124.11(A)(9) and were deputy county auditors under R.C. 124.11(A)(4). ¹ The ALJ found it unnecessary to determine whether Baker and

Page 641

Johnson were also unclassified employees on the additional basis of an administrative relationship to the auditor under R.C. 124.11(A)(9). Based on his findings, the ALJ recommended that Baker and Johnson's appeal be dismissed, since the SPBR lacked jurisdiction over unclassified employees. The SPBR adopted the ALJ's report and recommendation and dismissed Baker and Johnson's appeal. On appeal, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the SPBR's decision.

Upon further appeal, however, the Franklin County Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the common pleas court and remanded the cause for further proceedings. Baker v. Hadley (June 6, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 94APE10-1550, 94APE10-1551, and 94APE10-1552, unreported, 1995 WL 347876, discretionary appeal not allowed (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1422, 655 N.E.2d 742. It determined that the common pleas court abused its discretion in upholding the SPBR's decision that Baker and Johnson were unclassified employees pursuant to the R.C. 124.11(A)(4) deputy county auditor exemption and the R.C. 124.11(A)(9) fiduciary exemption.

On remand, the common pleas court granted the auditor's motion to remand the case to the SPBR so that the board could determine whether Baker and Johnson "were, at the time of their discharge, employees holding an administrative relationship to [the] Columbiana County Auditor under R.C. 124.11(A)(9)." Baker's and Johnson's appeals from the common pleas court's remand order were dismissed for lack of a final appealable order, and we refused to consider their discretionary appeals. Baker v. Hadley (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 1437, 685 N.E.2d 546; Johnson v. Hadley, id. In July 1998, the SPBR ordered that a supplemental hearing be held in the case.

Shortly thereafter, Baker and Johnson filed a complaint in the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus to compel SPBR and the auditor to reinstate them to their classified employment with the auditor and for a writ of prohibition to prevent the SPBR from conducting any further proceedings in the case. The court of appeals granted SPBR's motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

[710 N.E.2d 708] This cause is now before the court upon an appeal as of right.

Page 642

Stewart Jaffy & Associates Co., L.P.A., Stewart R. Jaffy and Marc J. Jaffy, Columbus, for appellants.

Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, and Peter M. Thomas, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee State Personnel Board of Review.

PER CURIAM.

Baker and Johnson assert in their propositions of law that the court of appeals erred in dismissing their claims for extraordinary relief in prohibition and mandamus. For the reasons that follow, we find that these assertions are meritless and affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

Baker and Johnson initially contend that they are entitled to a writ of prohibition because SPBR patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction to proceed. If an inferior tribunal patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, prohibition will lie to prevent any future unauthorized exercise of jurisdiction and to correct the results of prior jurisdictionally unauthorized actions. State ex rel. Fogle v. Steiner (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 158, 161, 656 N.E.2d 1288, 1292. Baker and Johnson claim that the court of appeals' 1995 judgment in their case conclusively established that they were classified employees of the auditor and that that judgment is the law of the case on whether the R.C. 124.11(A)(9) ² exemption applies.

Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the " 'decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels.' " (Emphasis added.) Pipe Fitters Union Local No. 392 v. Kokosing Constr. Co., Inc. (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 214...