Suso v. Ohio Dept. of Development (Dec. 28, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-474, unreported, 1993 WL 540280. Where the job requirements and job duties of a position require that the employee holding the position possess and utilize skills that are predominantly mental or intellectual and are the result of professed attainments in special knowledge, as distinguished from mere skill, the employee is considered to perform duties of a professional and technical nature and is exempted from the classified civil service pursuant to R.C. 122.11 and 122.42(B)(8). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Johnson v. Municipal Civil Service Commission (May 29, 1992), Trumbull App. No. 91-T-4542, unreported, 1992 WL 121675. A municipal court is a "court of record" pursuant to R.C. 1901.02 and its bailiffs are exempted from the civil service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(10); there is no distinction to be made between an "inside" bailiff and an "outside" bailiff.

Thomas v. Municipal Civil Service Commission of Athens (Mar. 20, 1986), Athens App. No. 1257, unreported, 1986 WL 3410. R.C. 124.11(A)(3) term "heads of departments appointed by the mayor" does not require an express appointment by the mayor, together with an ordinance authorizing such appointment. View Court of Appeals Decision

Angelo v. Ohio State University (July 30, 1981), Franklin App. No. 81AP-229, unreported, 1981 WL 3370. Student employees in colleges may be placed in the unclassified civil service; the definition of a student employee as an employee of the university who carries at least eight credit hours per quarter is not unreasonable and is not an abuse of the board of trustee's discretion.

Heilman v. Licking County Dept. of Human Services (Jan. 18, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-04-2544, unreported. R.C. 124.11(A)(6) makes it clear that the national guard service is civil service and all officers and enlistees in the state military are unclassified Ohio civil servants; therefore, service with the Ohio national guard should be counted when computing Appellant's retention points for the purposes of determining his displacement rights during a layoff. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Schroot v. Ohio Dept. of Development (Sept. 6, 1991), PBR No. 91-REM-01-0044; aff'd (Oct. 30, 1991), Full Board. The position of deputy director of the office of criminal justice services is in the unclassified civil service pursuant to Am. H.B. No. 1277, specifically sections 3 and 122.22 of that Act. View SPBR Order

Rivers v. Supreme Court of Ohio (Dec. 24, 1990), PBR 90-REM-10-0980. The Supreme Court of Ohio may designate certain positions as within the unclassified civil service pursuant to R.C. 2503.05. View SPBR Order

Osting v. Ohio Dept. of MR/DD (Aug. 19, 1986), PBR No. 86-RED-04-0459. An employee need not have the power of final approval or disapproval to be administrative or managerial; where an employee directs, supervises and monitors the purchase of service contracts, supervises staff to achieve that end and chairs a committee that is empowered to hear rate appeals on service contracts, the employee works in an administrative capacity and is unclassified pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(14). View SPBR Order

1990 Op. Atty Gen. No. 013. A county employee serving in a position in the classified civil service is, as of the effective date of a statutory provision changing such position to the unclassified service, no longer in the classified service of the county and is no longer entitled to the protections afforded classified employees (1986 Op. Atty Gen. No. 015 overruled).

1986 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 015. Notwithstanding the language of R.C. 124.11(A)(21)and 1513.03, as amended by Am. Sub. H.B. 238, 116th Gen. A. 1985 (eff. July 1, 1985), an individual who was initially employed in the position of inspection officer of coal and surface mining operations as a member of the classified service retains the protections afforded to classified employees. View Attorney General Opinion

    A. County Boards and Commissions/Deputy Auditors - R.C. 124.11(A)(4)

Ossenbeck v. Hamilton County Auditor (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 204; cert denied 69 Ohio St.3d 1490; U.S. cert denied 115 S.Ct. 337. "Deputy Auditor," excluded from classified civil service, is one who performs non-ministerial, discretionary duties in auditor's place and stead; account clerks in payroll department of county auditor's office are not deputy auditors, excluded from classified civil service, even though they had taken oath as deputy auditors, absent showing that clerks exercised any policy-formulating responsibilities. View SPBR Order

Baker, et al. v. Columbiana County Auditor (June 6, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE10-1550, unreported, 1995 WL 347876. An employee may not be considered a deputy county auditor pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(4) unless he is authorized by law to act for and in the place of his principal and he holds a fiduciary relationship to such principal; both qualifications must be present (citing State, ex rel. Emmons v. Guckenberger (1936), 131 Ohio St.466). View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Capozzoli v. Summit County Auditor's Office (Apr. 22, 1981), Summit App. No. 9876, unreported, 1981 WL 2931. The position of chief appraiser falls within the definition of "deputy county auditor" as used in R.C. 124.11(A)(4). View Court of Appeals Decision

    B. Public Schools, Colleges and Universities/ Library Staff - R.C. 124.11(A)(7)

Lynch v. Ohio State University (Mar. 5, 1985), Franklin App. No. 84AP-258, unreported, 1985 WL 9888. An employee of an Ohio State University library does not fall under the definition of "the library staff of any library in the state supported wholly or in part at public expense." View Court of Appeals Decision

Baumeister v. University of Cincinnati (Mar. 22, 1990), PBR No. 89-LAY-10-0543. The language "as determined by the governing body of said public school system, colleges, and universities" contained in R.C. 124.11(A)(7) does not preclude review by the state personnel board of review; the statute applies to an original determination only. View SPBR Order

    C. Secretaries, Assistants and Clerks - R.C. 124.11(A)(8)

Esselburne v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 37; cert denied 40 Ohio St.3d 710. The exercise of an appointment under R.C. 124.11(A)(8) could lawfully result in the abolishment of an occupied classified position where 1) the appointing authority appoints unclassified assistants pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(8); 2) a determination of the need for a reduction of the work force is made; 3) a determination of the position or positions to be abolished to fulfill this need is made; and 4) the classified employee is notified of the job abolishment, with all these steps being accomplished within the procedures provided by R.C. 124.321 et seq.

Whyte v. Jefferson County Engineer (1987), 41 Ohio App.3d 54. An appointee to an elective office who is subsequently elected can exercise his prerogative to exempt positions under R.C. 124.11(A)(8); "taking office" occurs each time an elected official is sworn into that office.

Freeman v. Ohio Dept. of Human Services (Feb. 1, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF03-1825, unreported; aff'd (Dec. 14, 1995), Franklin App. No. 95APE03-359, unreported, 1995 WL 739882. Appellant's duties, such as preparing memoranda for the director's signature, speaking on behalf of the department and aiding in efforts to develop a new set of rules for the department are all indicative of the position of assistant, as defined by R.C. 124.11(A)(8). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Malloy v. Stark County Board of Commissioners (Dec. 20, 1993), Stark App. No. CA 9308, unreported, 1993 WL 544278. Where the position of county building inspector is created in accordance with R.C. 307.38, which designates the position as in the classified service, a board of commissioners may not remove the position from the classified service by attempting to categorize the position as one of "assistant" to the board, pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(8). View SPBR Order

McCune v. Garman (Mar. 9, 1992), Hardin App. No. 6-91-2, unreported, 1992 WL 52748. Where an appointing authority attempts to exempt more positions than allowed by law, the state personnel board of review may reinstate an appellant upon its determination that appellant was not properly exempted from the classified service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(8). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

Kissos v. Mahoning County Board of Commissioners (May 6, 1994), PBR Case No. 93-REM-07-0427; aff'd (June 23, 1994) Full Board. Where the appointing authority did not obtain the consent of appellant, who held a classified position, to place appellant's position in the unclassified service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(8), appellant's removal as an unclassified employee must be disaffirmed. View SPBR Order

Melago v. Mahoning County Board of Commissioners (May 6, 1994), PBR Case No. 93-REM-07-0428; aff'd (June 23, 1994) Full Board. O.A.C. 123:1-5-92 provides that an elective office may exempt positions from the classified service within a 60-day period after taking office; where an individual is appointed to fill a vacancy caused by resignation of an elected official, the 60-day period does not run from the date of such appointment, but, rather, from the date of the original elected term of office. View SPBR Order

    D. Fiduciary/Administrative Employees - R.C. 124.11(A)(9)

Rice v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (1994), 497 U.S. 1001. In addition to the criteria set forth in Elrod v. Burns (1976), 427 U.S. 347, courts should also consider whether a position is "inherently political," in determining whether political affiliation is an acceptable hiring condition; political affiliation is an appropriate job requirement for the position of an administrative assistant in the Ohio department of transportation.

Elrod v. Burns (1976), 427 U.S. 347. When deciding whether political affiliation is an acceptable hiring condition, courts may consider the breadth of the employee's responsibilities, the precision with which those responsibilities are defined, and whether the employee acts as an adviser or formulates plans for the implementation of broad goals.

State, ex rel. Charlton v. Corrigan (1988), 36 Ohio St.3d 68. In determining whether a fiduciary relationship exists between a public official and his appointed employees pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9), emphasis should be placed upon whether the assigned job duties require, as essential qualifications over and above technical competency requirements, a high degree of trust, confidence, reliance, integrity and fidelity.

Rarick v. Geauga County Board of Commissioners (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 34. A position is in a fiduciary relationship with the appointing authority when the authority cannot be expected to delegate the duties of that position to the average employee possessing any required technical knowledge and a knowledge of what is expected of him; a position is in an administrative relationship with the appointing authority when the authority must rely on the personal judgment and leadership abilities of the employee occupying that position.

Yarosh v. Becane (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 5. A deputy is in a fiduciary relationship with a sheriff when the deputy's duties could not be expected to be delegated to the average deputy with knowledge of proper police procedure for that task; in such cases special trust and confidence is required.

Yarosh v. Becane (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 5. A deputy is in an administrative relationship with a sheriff when the duties the deputy is required to perform for the sheriff are such that the sheriff must rely on the deputy's personal judgment and leadership abilities; these qualities are highly subjective in nature and cannot be examined in any practical manner.

In re Termination of Employment of Pratt v. Moore (1974), 40 Ohio St.2d 107; cert denied 46 Ohio St.2d 88. Deputy sheriffs are members of the unclassified civil service only when they are assigned to, and perform, duties such that they hold "a fiduciary or administrative relationship" to the sheriff.

Ossenbeck v. Hamilton County Auditor (1994), 93 Ohio App.3d 204; cert denied 69 Ohio St.3d 1490; U.S. cert denied 115 S.Ct. 337. Account clerks in payroll department of county auditor's office were not "fiduciaries," for purposes of determining whether they were classified civil servants; though clerks had authority to handle special pay warrants when needed, they supervised no one, were responsible for no policy formulations, did not report directly to the auditor, their job skills could be determined by examination and their jobs possessed routinized character. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Adams v. Wallace (1993), 92 Ohio App.3d 462; cert denied (1994) __ Ohio St.3d ____. Mandamus would issue to require directors of department of human services and department of administrative services to reinstate division chiefs in their respective positions in classified civil service after directors had purported to change chiefs' positions to unclassified service retroactive to time of their respective original appointments; statutory provision stating that division chiefs were in classified service controlled over statute providing that unclassified service included deputies and assistants of elective or principal executive officers authorized to act for and in place of their principals, or holding fiduciary relation to such principals.

Baker v. Columbiana County Auditor (Feb. 24, 2004), 2004-Ohio-839. In determining the administrative nature of an employee's job duties, something more than length of service must set the individual apart from the average employee. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Beery v. Ohio Board of Chiropractic Examiners (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 206. Employee charged with special position of trust, who may be exempted from civil service requirements, is one who attains a position of superiority or influence, performs discretionary duties beyond the mere routine, and functions in capacity not expected of ordinary employee.

Burigana v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1996), 108 Ohio App.3d 574. Where the authority to make decisions is vested in a commission as a whole, with a vote of the majority of the commission making the actual decision, that commission cannot, as a matter of law, have a principal executive officer for purposes of R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Underwood v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety (Dec. 5, 1995), Franklin App. No. 95APE02-242, unreported, 1995 WL 723682. The registrar of the bureau of motor vehicles is responsible for the day to day operations of the bureau and is a principal executive officer for purposes of R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

Wells v. Monroe County Board of Commissioners (June 27, 1995), Scioto App. No. 94-CA-2273, unreported, 1995 WL 404994; cert denied (Nov. 15, 1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1457. Administrator of a county care center was in a fiduciary and/or administrative relationship with the county commissioners; a county care center is not a county home as defined in R.C. 5155.31. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Selekman v. Board of Mahoning County Commissioners (Mar. 5, 1996), Mahoning App. No. 95 CA 107, unreported, 1996 WL 99816. A county budget director is a fiduciary employee pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Baker, et al. v. Columbiana County Auditor (June 6, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE10-1550, unreported, 1995 WL 347876. Although unlimited purchase order approval authority indicated a fiduciary relationship, neither the authority to issue dog, trailer and vendor licenses nor the authority to prepare documents for the auditor's review and provide delinquent taxpayer lists to the newspaper represent the kind of individualized discretion or degree of trust necessary for a fiduciary relationship. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Crosser v. Ottawa County Sheriff (June 2, 1995), Ottawa App. No. OT-94-047, unreported, 1995 WL 326414. An employee's classified status may not be based on his or her limited job description where the employee's actual job duties are far greater and evidence of a fiduciary relationship with the appointing authority is established by a preponderance of the evidence.

Robinson v. Ohio Dept. of Insurance (May 25, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE07-1090, unreported, 1995 WL 318765. A fiduciary relationship can exist even though a person is not the ultimate decision-maker; the element of personal trust establishes the existence of a fiduciary relationship. View SPBR Order

Smith v. Sushka (May 18, 1995), Washington App. Nos. 94CA37, 94CA38, unreported, 1995 WL 299895. All of an employee's duties should be considered when determining whether that employee is in the classified service, not just an employee's primary job duties; an employee's duties may be sufficient to place him or her in a fiduciary or administrative relationship even when exercised infrequently. View SPBR Order

Treciak v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Mar. 24, 1995), Licking App. No. 94-CA-00085, unreported, 1995 WL 347999; cert denied (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 1453. Courts are to look at an employee's duties to determine whether there is a great degree of discretion in carrying out those duties, and whether the duties are done in good faith on another's behalf or merely because of a legal obligation. Courts are to determine if the overall job structure makes integrity and loyalty to the employer an essential job qualification over technical competency requirements; further, the duties should be examined to see if they are routine in nature or are assigned pursuant to criteria exemplifying a fiduciary. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Gillivan v. Ohio Bureau of Tax Appeals (Aug. 18, 1994), Franklin App. No. 94APE02-145, unreported, 1994 WL 454719. Where the record indicates that appellant exercised a high degree of discretion in carrying out his duties and that his position required a high degree of trust, confidence, reliance and fidelity, appellant's general assertions that his duties were mostly ministerial, involving routine or mundane matters, will not defeat a finding that appellant was exempted from the classified service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9).

Carter v. Butler County Sheriff (Apr. 12, 1994), Butler Co., No. CV93-11-1705, unreported; aff'd (Nov. 7, 1994), Butler App. No. CA94-05-111, unreported, 1994 WL 606164; dismissed (1995) 71 Ohio St.3d 1497. Participation in political activity is indicative, but not determinative, of an employee's fiduciary capacity. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Henley v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Nov. 1, 1994), Franklin App. No. 94-APE03-306, unreported, 1994 WL 612350. Employee's three primary responsibilities, 1) writing decisions on first level tax appeals; 2) representing the administrator of OBES in all tax appeal hearings before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review; and 3) conducting predisciplinary conferences, placed him in a fiduciary relationship with the administrator of OBES. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Eblin v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety (Mar. 24, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93AP-1162, unreported, 1994 WL 97185. Whether an employee is in the classified or unclassified service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9) does not depend on counting the number of individual meetings with a department director or whether or not the employee was part of an executive or senior staff; the test is whether the assigned job duties require, as essential qualifications over and above technical competency requirements, a high degree of trust, confidence, reliance, integrity and fidelity.

Adams v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Dec. 16, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-1028, unreported, 1993 WL 524896; cert denied (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 1438. Where a director places a high degree of trust in, reliance on and confidence in an employee because the director has no personal expertise in the specific area addressed by the employee, that employee serves in a fiduciary capacity to the director and is a member of the unclassified service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Grauvogel v. Hamilton County Auditor (Nov. 24, 1993), Hamilton App. No. C-920821, unreported, 1993 WL 538961. The position of director of the real estate division of the county auditor's office, created as a deputy of the auditor pursuant to R.C. 325.17, may be exempted from the classified civil service under the provisions of R.C. 124.11(A)(9).

Hitchens v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Oct. 14, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-315, unreported, 1993 WL 418368. An administrative relationship is characterized by a position where the employee is in charge of formulating official policy or of carrying out policy in the supervision of the daily activities of subordinates; an administrative relationship also involves the exercise of personal judgment and leadership abilities and is not merely the relaying of orders. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Gallia County Sheriff v. Burnette (Feb. 16, 1993), Gallia App. No. 92-CA-13, unreported, 1993 WL 34450. A personnel aide in the sheriff's office is not an unclassified employee pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9) where her duties were such that any properly trained individual with knowledge of the appropriate procedure could complete the tasks; where the record contains no evidence of a family relationship between the former sheriff and the appellant, a reviewing court errs in considering that fact in support of its judgment.

Summit County Auditor v. Williams (Nov. 30, 1988), Summit App. No. 13580, unreported, 1988 WL 131445. Where an employee designated as a "deputy auditor" has little, if any, decision-making power and performs duties of a perfunctory, mechanical nature, he does not enjoy an administrative or fiduciary relationship with the county auditor as set forth in R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Court of Appeals Decision

Quallen v. Van Camp (July 27, 1987), Clermont App. No. CA87-01-001, unreported, 1987 WL 14580. Where it would be impossible to conduct an adequate examination to determine fitness for the position and the employee had the duty of carrying out official policy in the supervision of the daily activities of subordinates, the employee is in an administrative relationship to the sheriff and is unclassified pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Court of Appeals Decision

Goodman v. Lucas County Court of Common Pleas (June 11, 1996), Lucas Co., No. CI-95-3519, unreported. Where a county employee holds a fiduciary/administrative relationship to a non-elective official, that employee may not be considered unclassified pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Pennell v. Holmes County Sheriff (Oct. 11, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF10-7395, unreported. Appellant's duties, which included managing the jail, acting as the sheriff's representative during construction of the jail, supervising staff, presenting budget proposals to the county commissioners, ordering equipment for the sheriff's office, and running the day to day operations of the sheriff's department, are indicative of the high level of trust placed in appellant and evidence a fiduciary relationship as described in R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Underwood v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety (Jan. 6, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF-03-2179, unreported. Employee stands in a fiduciary duty to Registrar when Registrar and Director depend on employee's expertise to respond to public and governmental concerns, prepare appropriate responses, conduct pre-bid applications, maintain financial and historical records, and function at a level above the average technical competency of other bureau employees.

Hammel v. Ohio Dept. of Development (Dec. 20, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF03-1504, unreported. The fact that a fiduciary employee was removed because the appointing authority no longer had confidence in him or her does not affect the nature of the employee's duties; clearly, confidentiality can be lost and an unclassified person serves at the will of his or her supervisor. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Jeffers v. Knox County Engineer (Oct. 5, 1993), PBR 93-REM-01-0035; aff'd (Dec. 9, 1993), Full Board; aff'd (Mar. 4, 1994), Knox Co., No. 94AP-01-0007, unreported. Where appellant's duties involve little or no discretion and, while important, would not have a significant detrimental impact upon appellee if abused or poorly performed, appellant falls within neither the fiduciary nor administrative exemption from the classified service found in R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Direnfeld-Michael v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Nov. 4, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 92CVF-05-3583, unreported. Where an employee performs important tasks, but her duties do not involve independent decision-making authority, and employee does not act as a repository of matters of trust, employee is not a fiduciary for purposes of R.C. 124.11(A)(9). View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Dacek v. Cuyahoga County Community Mental Health Board (Mar. 4, 1994), PBR No. 93-ABL-04-0241; aff'd (May 5, 1994) Full Board. The position of legal counsel to a community mental health board is not in a fiduciary relationship with the board when the incumbent is not directly responsible to and does not answer to an elected county official, nor is the position a "program director" as exempted under R.C. 124.11(A)(18). View SPBR Order

Flis v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety (Dec. 19, 1991), PBR 91-REM-04-0220; aff'd (Feb. 10, 1992). Since the registrar of the bureau of motor vehicles has a statutory responsibility for the operation of the bureau and the execution of its mission, notwithstanding the oversight mandated by law to be exercised by the director of the department of highway safety, the registrar is a principal executive officer in relation to the bureau as intended by R.C. 124.11(A)(9) for purposes of the operation and employees of the bureau. View SPBR Order

Spinelli v. Ohio Public Works Commission (Apr. 12, 1991), PBR No. 90-REM-09-0916; rev'd (NO DATE), Full Board. Where appellant, while regarded as a professional employee and relied upon, was treated no differently than other similarly situated employees, had no authority to obligate his supervisor or the department, did not unilaterally promulgate policy and did not have ultimate authority in project matters, appellant was not a fiduciary.

    E. Court Employees - R.C. 124.11(A)(10)

Abbot v. Stepanik (1990), 64 Ohio App.3d 719. Juvenile detention center part-time employees who claimed to have been wrongfully terminated were defined by statute as being outside classified civil service, so were not entitled to statutory protection against termination for other than just cause.

Cook v. Baden (Apr. 8, 1996), Butler App. No. CA95-01-0004, unreported, 1996 WL 165515. "Public money," as the term is used in R.C. 124.11(A)(10), is simply money owned or controlled by the government; bond money received by an assistant clerk of courts that is lawfully commingled with public money and under the control of a public servant under the color of office is "public money." View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Honaker v. Scioto County Common Pleas Court (Dec. 6, 1993), Scioto App. No. 92-CA-2087, unreported, 1993 WL 524974. Where an appellant holds a hybrid position, i.e. appellant has two job titles -- one placed in the unclassified service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(10) and one in the classified service, the state personnel board of review should base its jurisdiction on an analysis of the job duties assigned to and performed by appellant. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Pond v. Franklin County Clerk of Courts (Aug. 25, 1992), Franklin App. No. 92AP-430, unreported, 1992 WL 214330. A deputy clerk who, in his role as a mail carrier, handles currency, mail orders and preprinted and other checks made to or written by the clerk of courts, is within the definition of one who "handle(s) public moneys or secured documents," as set forth in R.C. 124.11(A)(10), and is properly a member of the unclassified service. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Goins v. Summit County Clerk of Courts (Mar. 6, 1991), Summit App. No. 14796, unreported, 1991 WL 35129. An employee who handles public monies and secured documents, delivers valuable blank titles, handles mail which contins fees and monies, collects the daily receipts from branch offices, and performs title searches and lien cancellations is a member of the unclassified civil service pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(10).

Cook v. Butler County Clerk of Courts (Dec. 8, 1994), Butler Co., No. CV94-02-0278, unreported. "Public moneys" includes moneys collected by or due a public official under color of office, as well as money collected by any individual on behalf of a public office; "secured documents" includes titles with liens and bonds securing appearance. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

   F. Management Employees of County MR/DD Boards - R.C. 124.11(A)(19)

Kohls v. Perry County Board of MR/DD (Sept. 29, 1994), Franklin App. No. 94APE-01-122, unreported, 1994 WL 530296. Although an appointing authority's actions may infer that it considered an employee to be classified, that inference does not establish the employee's classification; the duties of an employee, rather than the appointing authority's designation are determinative of the employee's classification.

Schoenberger v. Wyandot County Board of MR/DD (Apr. 21, 1989), PBR 89-LAY-02-0141. The "management employees" referenced by R.C. 124.11(A)(19) and 5126.20 include the assistant superintendent, director of business, director of personnel and adult services director workshop director. View SPBR Order

    G. County Hospital Employees - R.C. 124.11(A)(20)

Lawrence v. Edwin Shaw Hospital (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 137. County hospital employees laid off subsequent to the enactment of R.C. 124.11(A)(20), which places county hospital employees appointed under R.C. 339.03 and 339.06 into the unclassified civil service, are not thereby subjected to an unconstitutional taking of property without compensation, nor to an unconstitutional impairment of contract rights, nor to a retroactive application of the statute, nor to a violation of the due process and equal protection guarantees of the Ohio and United States Constitutions.

Shearer v. Cuyahoga County Hospital (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 59. A public employee does not have a property right in continued status as a classified civil servant; a public employee who once was, but is no longer, a classified civil servant may be discharged without a hearing (position was statutorily excepted from the classified service during employee's tenure).

Fabian v. Holmes County Pomerene Memorial Hospital (Mar. 17, 1995), PBR 95-REM-01-0029. The state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction over the appeal of a purchasing assistant employed by a county hospital, pursuant to R.C. 124.11(A)(20), which places such employees in the unclassified civil service. View SPBR Order