State ex rel. Rader v. City of Pataskala
| Decision Date | 18 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 15–CA–40.,15–CA–40. |
| Citation | 61 N.E.3d 618 |
| Parties | STATE of Ohio, ex rel. Jerry L. RADER, Relator–Appellant v. CITY OF PATASKALA, et al., Respondents–Appellees. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Wesley T. Fortune, Fortune Law Limited, Carroll, OH, for relator-appellant.
Michael J. Valentine, Melvin J. Davis, Reminger Co., L.P.A., Columbus, OH, for defendants-appellees.
DELANEY
, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant Jerry L. Rader appeals from the May 8, 2015 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas granting the motion for summary judgment of appellees City of Pataskala (“City”), Benjamin King (“King”) and Timothy Boland (“Boland”).
{¶ 2} Appellant worked for the City in the position of Public Service Supervisor/Street Supervisor/Street Superintendent.1 Beginning in 2007, appellant reported directly to King, the City's former Director of Public Services. King in turn reported to Boland, the City's former City Administrator.
{¶ 3} On August 22, 2011, the City sent appellant a memorandum about his “unacceptable work performance” as documented by King. Evaluation of appellant's performance as Street Supervisor indicated his leadership needed improvement and in some areas his performance had diminished significantly. Appellant responded in writing to the work performance evaluation.
{¶ 4} On June 7, 2012, due to additional poor reviews of appellant's work performance, King recommended demotion of appellant to equipment operator via a memorandum to Boland and Law Director Rufus Hurst dated.
{¶ 5} On July 15, 2012, appellant addressed a memorandum to Boland and Hurst reporting an “age discrimination situation” between King and himself, asking the City to initiate an “administrative investigation.”
{¶ 6} On July 17, 2012, the City served appellant with a Notice of Pre–Disciplinary Meeting to be held on July 19, 2012. The hearing was continued to August 9, 2012, and then to August 16, 2012.
{¶ 7} The “pre-disciplinary summary and recommendation” is dated August 21, 2012 and memorializes events, noting appellant's counsel requested more time to review the information provided and the hearing was continued to August 9, 2012. The following paragraph describes the events of August 9, 2012:
{¶ 8} The recommendation further states appellant's potential retirement was a separate matter; the persons involved in the disciplinary action did not have authority to drop the disciplinary procedures without the approval of the City Administrator; and if appellant intended to retire, he should communicate with the Administrator as soon as possible. As of the date of the recommendation, appellant had not responded, so King recommended that the City proceed with the disciplinary process, i.e. demote appellant from Street Supervisor to Equipment Operator. The memo notes appellant has appeal rights to the Personnel Board of Review.
{¶ 9} In an email dated August 31, 2012, City Law Director Rufus Hurst advised appellant's counsel the disciplinary proceedings would go forward and the parties needed to “define both direction and a timetable.” If appellant wanted to accept a demotion and continue his employment, Hurst would prepare a Memorandum of Understanding; if appellant chose to retire, he should advise the City as soon as possible; or finally, the disciplinary process would continue and appellant could “proceed consistent with his rights.”
{¶ 10} On September 13, 2012, with an effective date of September 14, 2012, the City served appellant with an Order of Removal, Reduction, Suspension, Fine, Involuntary Disability Separation noting his demotion from the position of Street Supervisor to the position of Equipment Operator IV. The Order advised appellant of his appeal rights to the City of Pataskala Personnel Board of Review. Appellant filed a written request for appeal to the Personnel Board of Review on September 19, 2012.
{¶ 11} The parties were communicating and attempting to schedule the hearing before the Personnel Board of Review when appellant submitted a two-week notice of retirement on December 17, 2012.
{¶ 12} Appellant's Exhibit 24, attached to his Complaint, is email correspondence. On December 17, 2012, Hurst emailed appellant's counsel and stated he was surprised and confused to learn appellant submitted his resignation effective December 31. Appellant's counsel responded he had recently learned appellant submitted his resignation “after discussing matters with his family over the weekend” and appellant was not amenable to a settlement offer the City had made.
{¶ 13} On December 26, 2012, the City sent appellant a letter stating the human resources department was in receipt of his “unanticipated” resignation letter dated December 17, 2012 and the City accepted the resignation. Further, pursuant to appellant's letter, his employment with the City would end on December 31, 2012 and his exit interview was scheduled for that day. The letter also states in pertinent part:
{¶ 14} The email correspondence attached to appellant's Complaint demonstrates that from this point forward, the City concluded appellant's notice of intent to retire abandoned his attempt to appeal the demotion. Appellant, though, referred to his separation from employment as an unintended result forced upon him by the City. (Complaint Exhibit 25).
{¶ 15} Appellant claimed he did not intend to retire, only to stay in the City's “good graces.” Appellant made the following statements in deposition:
{¶ 17} On January 27, 2014, appellant filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Original Action in Mandamus. Appellees answered. On March 19, 2015, appellees filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Appellant responded with a motion in opposition and appellees replied.
{¶ 18} On May 8, 2015, the trial court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment.
{¶ 19} Appellant now appeals from the May 8, 2015 Judgment Entry of the Licking County Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 20} Appellant raises four assignments of error:
ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
{¶ 21}
{¶ 22}
{¶ 23}
{¶ 24} ...
To continue reading
Request your trial