State ex rel. Stultz v. Columbus City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 19 February 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 17AP-656,17AP-656 |
| Parties | The State ex rel. Steven L. Stultz, Relator, v. Columbus City School District Board of Education, Respondent. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(REGULAR CALENDAR)
DECISION
On brief: Matthew M. Banal, for relator.
On brief: Wanda T. Lillis, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS ON OBJECTION TO THE MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
{¶ 1} Relator, Steven L. Stultz, initiated this original action requesting this court issue a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Columbus City School District Board of Education, to provide him back pay pursuant to the April 3, 2017 decision of the Columbus Civil Service Commission that modified Stultz's October 20, 2015 discharge to a 30-day suspension without pay.
{¶ 2} This matter was referred to a magistrate of this court pursuant to Civ.R. 53(C) and Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth District Court of Appeals. On June 18, 2018, the magistrate issued a decision including findings of fact and conclusions of law. The magistrate's decision, which is appended hereto, recommends this court deny Stultz's request for a writ of mandamus.
{¶ 3} Stultz has filed an objection to the magistrate's decision. Therefore, we must independently review the decision to ascertain whether "the magistrate has properly determined the factual issues and appropriately applied the law." Civ.R. 53(D)(4)(d). Stultz does not challenge the magistrate's recitation of the pertinent facts; however, he objects to the magistrate's conclusion that respondent has met its burden of proof related to the affirmative defense of mitigation of damages.
{¶ 4} As the magistrate noted, a reinstated public employee may maintain a mandamus action to recover back pay " 'provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty.' " State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 105 Ohio St.3d 476, 2005-Ohio-2974, ¶ 28, quoting State ex rel. Martin v. Bexley City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 39 Ohio St.3d 36, 37 (1988). "The term 'with certainty' generally refers to 'whether a particular amount has been precisely determined as to its value in dollars and cents.' " Stacy at ¶ 28, quoting State ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins, 9 Ohio St.3d 117, 120 (1984).
{¶ 5} Here, the record does not support a finding that there has been a precise determination of a particular dollar amount of back pay respondent owes to Stultz. Instead, the record indicates lack of consensus on the dates Stultz is entitled to back pay. "When the underlying material facts are in dispute, the appropriate remedy for a public employee is not mandamus, but a declaratory judgment to establish the amount owed." State ex rel. Manley v. Walsh, 142 Ohio St.3d 384, 2014-Ohio-4563, ¶ 26, citing State ex rel. Bossa v. Giles, 64 Ohio St.2d 273, 276 (1980). Thus, the amount recoverable has not been established "with certainty," and as a result, Stultz's request for a writ of mandamus must fail. Stacy at ¶ 28.
{¶ 6} In analyzing Stultz's objection to the magistrate's decision, Stultz has misconstrued the magistrate's decision as confirming Stultz is definitively entitled to back pay from the period of October 20, 2015 through April 7, 2017. Stultz then relies on this flawed premise to object to the magistrate's application of the affirmative defense of mitigation of damages. We clarify here that because the amount owed to Stultz has not been established "with certainty" his action in mandamus fails solely on that basis. Until there is an amount recoverable established with certainty, the issue of mitigation of damages has no application. Thus, we agree with the magistrate that Stultz's requested writ of mandamus be denied, but for more limited reasons than the magistrate expressed in his decision. Accordingly, we reject Stultz's challenge to the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 7} Following our independent review of the record pursuant to Civ.R. 53, we find the magistrate correctly determined Stultz is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we adopt the magistrate's factual findings, and, as outlined above, we adopt the magistrate's conclusions of law as modified. Therefore, we overrule Stultz's objection to the magistrate's decision and deny his request for a writ of mandamus.
Objection overruled; writ of mandamus denied.
APPENDIX
MAGISTRATE'S DECISION
Rendered on June 18, 2018
Matthew M. Banal, for relator.
Wanda T. Lillis, for respondent.
IN MANDAMUS
{¶ 8} In this original action, relator, Steven L. Stultz, requests a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, Columbus City School District Board of Education, to render to him back pay pursuant to the April 3, 2017 decision of the Columbus Civil Service Commission that modified respondent's October 20, 2015 discharge to a 30-day suspension without pay.
Findings of Fact:
{¶ 9} 1. On September 4, 2013, respondent hired relator to the position of food service helper. This part-time position required the employee to work three hours per day while school was in session. According to respondent's screenshot of relator's employment, relator was required to work 193 days per school year for a total of 579 hours during the school year.
{¶ 10} 2. Two school years are at issue here. Respondent's school calendar for the 2015-2016 school year begins for students on August 26, 2015 and ends June 2, 2016. Respondent's school calendar for the 2016-2017 school year begins for students on August 24, 2016 and ends June 1, 2017.
{¶ 11} 3. As a regular part-time employee, relator was subject to a collective bargaining agreement. Pertinent here is Article 15.3(C) of the agreement which provides in part:
Employees who have been out of work on account of illness for fifteen (15) consecutive workdays or longer, must have the approval of the Superintendent before returning to work. Such approval shall be secured through the School Physician after he/she has received a confidential report from the personal physician of the absent employee, indicating the nature of the illness and the condition of the employee.
{¶ 12} 4. On September 23, 2015, attending physician, Robert L. Aurand, M.D., completed a form provided by the U.S. Department of Labor. The four-page form is captioned "Certification of Health Care Provider for Employee's Serious Health Condition (Family and Medical Leave Act)." Apparently, Dr. Aurand practices at a Veteran's Administration Clinic located in Columbus, Ohio.
{¶ 13} Page two of the FMLA form is captioned "Part A: Medical Facts." Thereunder, Dr. Aurand indicates that relator's medical condition is "chronic."
At paragraph three of the form, the attending physician is instructed:
If the employer fails to provide a list of the employee's essential functions or a job description, answer these questions based upon the employee's own description of his/her job functions.
{¶ 14} Thereunder, the following query is posed: "Is the employee unable to perform any of his/her job functions due to the condition."
In response, Dr. Aurand marked the "No" box.
{¶ 15} At paragraph four of the form, the attending physician is instructed: "Describe other relevant medical facts, if any, related to the condition for which the employee seeks leave."
{¶ 16} In response to the above instruction, in the space provided, Dr. Aurand wrote:
Vet with chronic low back pain, bilateral hip pain and left foot pain. Vet has been taking ibuprofen and gabapentin without much success. Vet reports feeling weakness and instability. Vet also reports having difficulty standing on his job. Chest x-ray ordered and gabapentin increased to 900mg 3 times daily at the 9-17-15 visit with Dr. Aurand. Vet declined physical therapy services on 6-16-15 after meeting with VA PT staff.
{¶ 17} Page three of the FMLA form is captioned "Part B: Amount of Leave Needed." Thereunder, at paragraph seven, the form poses the following query:
Will the condition cause episodic flare-ups periodically preventing the employee from performing his/her job functions?
{¶ 18} In response to the above query, Dr. Aurand marked the "Yes" box.
Also, at paragraph seven, the form poses another query: "Is it medically necessary for the employee to be absent from work during the flare-ups?"
In response to the above query, Dr. Aurand marked the "Yes" box.
{¶ 19} In the space provided, Dr. Aurand wrote: "Vet may be unable to work during a flare-up of his chronic medical condition due to pain."
Also at paragraph seven, the form poses yet another query:
Based upon the patient's medical history and your knowledge of the medical condition, estimate the frequency of flare-ups and the duration of related incapacity that the patient may have over the next 6 months (e.g., 1 episode every 3 months lasting 1-2 days).
{¶ 20} In response to the above query, Dr. Aurand listed a frequency of "1-2" times per month and a duration of "1-2" days per episode.
{¶ 21} 5. On October 20, 2015, relator appeared at a hearing before respondent. Thereafter, relator was informed by letter that he is discharged from his employment effective October 20, 2015. The letter explains:
To continue reading
Request your trial