State, ex rel. Baran v. Fuerst (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 413. Where a R.C. 124.34 order is withdrawn by the appointing authority and appellant lacks a decision from which to appeal, appellant has no adequate remedy at law and a mandamus action to recover back pay is appropriate.

State, ex rel. Baran v. Fuerst (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 413. Mandamus is a proper remedy for reinstatement and back pay when an employee is removed from his position contrary to law and the employee is wrongfully excluded from employment during that period.

State, ex rel. Bush v. Spurlock (1992), 63 Ohio St.3d 453. A duty to pay lost wages exists when civil service employees are wrongfully excluded from public employment, notwithstanding the absence of a specific order to make such payment; employees reinstated at wages lower than they previously enjoyed must affirmatively show the absence of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law for a writ of mandamus rectifying the pertinent pay cuts to issue.

State, ex rel. Zone v. City of Cleveland (1986), 23 Ohio St.3d 1. Mandamus will not lie to compel a municipality to pay back wages to municipal skilled employees who contend they were de facto appointed to "foreman" positions by their supervisors and thus were entitled to the prevailing wage rates for such positions established between skilled building tradesmen and employers in the private sector, in the absence of a prior appointment to those positions.

State, ex rel. Gibbons v. Cleveland (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 216. No legal right to back pay can be established before an appointment has occurred, regardless of the reasons for the failure to appoint.

State, ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 117. Employee is entitled to a writ of mandamus to compel the board to award back pay if the damages are proven under the "with certainty" standard; the term "with certainty" refers to the quality of the proof that the employee demonstrates in proving that he has a clear legal right to the relief.

State, ex rel. Crockett v. Robinson (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 363. Pursuant to a writ of mandamus, a reinstated public employee is entitled to compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from his employement, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty and the employee has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to secure such payment; the employee may not recover interest or receive credit for vacation, holiday or sick leave hours which he would have received but might not have used during the period of his discharge.

State, ex rel. Fry v. Ferguson (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 252. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel responsible officials to pay classified state employees at the rates of pay provided by statute.

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. Reinstated public employee may maintain action in mandamus to recover compensation due for period of wrongful exclusion from employment, provided amount recoverable is established with certainty; this compensation is subject to reduction by amount employee earned or, in exercise of due diligence, could have earned in appropriate employment during period of exclusion. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. Principle of mitigation of damages applicable in public employee's suit to recover compensation for period of wrongful exclusion from employment is affirmative defense and burden of proof on that issue rests upon employer responsible for wrongful discharge; employer generally bears burden of showing that employee either found or could have found other similar employment and, in absence of proof, employee is entitled to recover salary fixed by contract. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. Public employees wrongfully excluded from employment need only accept similar employment in mitigation. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. County failed to show that law enforcement officer who sought to recover compensation for period of wrongful exclusion from employment did not mitigate his damages, even if officer failed to file formal job application, failed to sign up with any employment service or agency, and spent time building his new house during his period of unemployment; county failed to adduce any evidence that either similar employment was available or, assuming, arguendo, existence of similar employment, amount officer could have earned. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Butterbaugh v. Ross County Board of Commissioners (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 826. County sheriff's department is "state agency," and thus, no interest is due reinstated deputy sheriffs on their back compensation. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Martin v. Bexley City School District Board of Education (1989), 62 Ohio App.3d 101. School board was entitled to credit against its liability for back pay to wrongfully discharged employee for amounts she could have earned in mitigation of her damages if she had not resigned from substantially similar position she accepted shortly after discharge, but not for amounts earned at other employment or for unemployment compensation received during same period that she was charged with mitigation as though she had worked at replacement job.

McGrady v. Ohio Dept. of MR/DD (June 26, 1990), Franklin App. No. 90-AP-69, unreported, 1990 WL 86833. Although an employee may have performed the duties of a higher classification for a substantial amount of time prior to requesting a job audit, the effective date of his or her reclassification to the higher position should be the first date of the first pay period following his or her request for audit, absent a showing of exceptional circumstances. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

McCann v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (June 30, 1988), Franklin App. No. 88AP-265, unreported; dismissed (NO DATE), 39 Ohio St.3d 715. It is within the discretion of the state personnel board of review to determine the effective date of a reclassification; generally, where the employees' job duties are the same as they were on the date that the reclassification was requested and there are no other exceptional circumstances, the effective date should be the pay period following the request for a job audit. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Cohen v. Wilkins (Oct. 16, 1980), Franklin App. No. 80AP-53, unreported. Mandamus is a proper remedy to compel pay supplements when the pay supplements were lawfully due employee under the terms of her contract.

Donnelly v. Board of Education (Feb. 22, 1980), Cuyahoga App. No. 40521, unreported. Where a commission's order of reinstatement fails to include an order for back wages and benefits and the reinstated public employee is subsequently denied an award for back pay by the commission, the employee's institution of independent proceedings in the common pleas court to recover such back pay must be dismissed because the employee has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, by failing to appeal the commission's denial.

State, ex rel. Holloway v. Teater (June 22, 1978), Franklin App. No. 77AP-136, unreported. M