Porter v. Wray (1994), ___ U.S. ___. Due to the policy-influencing nature of the position of chief of the bureau of purchasing, a specific party affiliation is an appropriate requirement for effective performance of that job. View U.S. District Court Decision

Yarosh v. Becane (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 5. The duties of the employee, rather than the designation of the appointing authority, are determinative of whether the employee is classified or unclassified.

In re Termination of Employment of Pratt v. Coller (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 88. A stipulation that appellants performed all of the functions and duties and had all of the responsibilities which are normally assigned to deputy sheriffs in similar counties throughout the state, but that deputies did not under normal circumstances have any administrative responsibility for directing operations of office, did not provide sufficient basis for determining the duties assigned to and performed by the deputies so that it could be determined whether they were members of unclassified civil service and could be discharged by sheriff without review by state personnel board of review.

Leibson v. Ohio Dept. of MR/DD (1992), 84 Ohio App.3d 751. Statute providing that classified employee appointed to unclassified position shall retain the right to resume classified position and status held immediately prior to his appointment covers all affected classified service employees in Ohio Dept. of MR/DD, regardless of whether employee's position in unclassified civil service was covered by a collective bargaining agreement; statute imposes mandatory duty on MR/DD to provide the employee with the right to resume his immediately prior position and status.

Walsh v. Bollas (1992), 82 Ohio App.3d 588. A classified employee is not entitled to the protection of R.C. Ch. 124. when an employment contract is void as a violation of statutory prohibition against a public official knowingly authorizing a public contract in which a family member has interest because no rights can arise from an illegal contract. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

In re Appeal of Moreo (1983), 13 Ohio App.3d 22. The act of changing a position from the classified service to the unclassified service does not constitute the abolishment of the position, where the position continues to be filled and the duties remain substantially the same.

Henslee v. State Personnel Board of Review (1968), 15 Ohio App.2d 84. The fact that a state employee is carried on the payroll as being in the unclassified civil service does not establish that classification.

Chubb v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Sept. 26, 1996), Franklin App. No. 96APE03-292, unreported, 1996 WL 550336. While R.C. 4121.121(B) may give the BWC administrator the discretion to utilize the DAS to establish its job classification plans, it does not give the administrator the discretion to create unclassified positions of employment in the BWC outside of those filled by employees appointed pursuant to R.C. 124.11; since all positions of employment in the BWC are in the classified service except for those filled by employees the administrator or the board may appoint pursuant to R.C. 124.11, appellee's Administrative Staff position at the BWC cannot be considered exempt from the classified service pursuant to R.C. 124.14(B).

Adkins v. Montgomery County Prosecutor (Mar. 22, 1996), Montgomery App. No. 15426, unreported, 1996 WL 125921. Where the State Personnel Board of Review determines that Appellant is a classified employee, and also upholds Appellant's removal from employment, Appellee is not aggrieved by the board's determination of Appellant's classified status and may not appeal such a determination. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Suso v. Ohio Dept. of Development (Dec. 28, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-474, unreported, 1993 WL 540280. It is not impossible to be an unclassified employee and be supervised by a classified civil servant. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Chubb v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Jan. 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF09-6821, unreported. The inclusion of an employee's position in a 99000 series classification is not dispositive as to the employee's classified or unclassified status; the employee's job duties must be examined in order to make such a determination. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Fitzpatrick v. Ohio Dept. of Development (Dec. 20, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF02-882, unreported. Where appellant's position is mistakenly listed in the department of administrative services' records as being classified, that mistaken classification does not serve to place appellant within the situation described in R.C. 124.271 because appellant was effectively never within the classified civil service in his or her position. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Hammel v. Ohio Dept. of Development (Dec. 20, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF03-1504, unreported. Where appellant was a "one woman operation" and performed secretarial duties as well as duties of a professional and/or technical nature, the secretarial duties she performed did not place her in the classified civil service. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Dacek v. Cuyahoga County Community Mental Health Board (Mar. 4, 1994), PBR No. 93-ABL-04-0241; (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

Crowley v. Board of Tax Appeals (Oct. 23, 1991), PBR 91-MIS-08-0541; aff'd (Nov. 25, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (Feb. 3, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF12-9937, unreported. The state personnel board of review has no authority to issue a declaratory judgment stating that an employee is in the classified service rather than the unclassified service; whether or not an appointing authority's designation of a position is correct is an issue that can only be determined when the board's jurisdiction has been invoked in regard to an adverse personnel action suffered by an employee. View SPBR Order

Spinelli v. Ohio Public Works Commission (May 8, 1991), PBR 90-REM-09-0916, Full Board. Pursuant to R.C. 124.14(B)(4), where a statute gives authority to the director of the public works commission to fix the compensation of an employee, that employee is a member of the unclassified service. View SPBR Order