Melchi v. Burns International Security Services (1984), 597 F.Supp. 575. In context of claim for retaliatory discharge, employee retains ultimate burden of proving that discharge would not have occurred had there been no protected activity; mere production by employer of legitimate business reason underlying discharge of employee will not sterilize unlawful retaliation where latter is controlling factor.

Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine (1981), 450 U.S. 248. In a "whistleblower" appeal, the burden of proof remains at all times with the appellant; appellant also bears the burden of production to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the existence of the elements of its prima facie case, which are (1) that he complied with the requirements of R.C. 124.341 by filing a written report with the proper parties and (2) that, after filing such a report, the appointing authority took disciplinary or retaliatory action as a result of that filing.

Womack v. Munson (1980), 450 U.S. 979. Defendant did not have to prove absence of a retaliatory motive and articulate a legitimate reason for plaintiff's dismissal, but only had to produce evidence that would dispel inference of retaliation by establishing existence of a legitimate reason; the overall burden of persuasion remained with plaintiff to establish that the alleged legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for dismissal was in fact a pretext, a cover-up for retaliation.

Bispeck v. Trumbull County (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 26. The appointing authority bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence increased economy or efficiency as a result of an abolishment and subsequent layoff.

State, ex rel. Potten v. Kuth (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 321. At a hearing conducted before the state personnel board of review, the burden of proving defects in the procedure used to lay off an employee in the classified state service is on the employee.

Schwartz v. Comcorp, Inc. (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 639; cert denied 66 Ohio St.3d 1509. Former employee claiming constructive discharge bears burden of producing evidence that reasonable person would find his working conditions so intolerable that he would voluntarily resign, and the test is not a subjective one, but rather a reasonable one.

Schwartz v. Comcorp, Inc. (1993), 91 Ohio App.3d 639; cert denied 66 Ohio St.3d 1509. Prima facie elements of age discrimination are that appellant is over forty years old, discharged, qualified for position which he held, and replaced by younger worker, and if appellant establishes these four essential elements, burden shifts to employer to articulate nondiscriminatory reason for action taken.

Neal v. Hamilton County (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 670; cert denied 67 Ohio St.3d 1481. To establish a prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, the employee must show, in addition to elements required to establish a prima facie discrimination case, that 1) she engaged in a protected activity; 2) employer knew of her participation in protected activity; and 3) alleged retaliatory action followed the employee's participation in protected activity sufficiently close in time to warrant an inference of retaliatory motivation.

Neal v. Hamilton County (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 670; cert denied 67 Ohio St.3d 1481. If employee meets burden of establishing prima facie case of retaliatory discharge, employer must then articulate legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its action and employee must then show that reason was pretextual; employee cannot prevail on claim of retaliatory discharge if it appears from the evidence that employer would have made the same decision regardless of employee's participation in a protected activity.

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

Gingo v. Ohio State Medical Board (1989), 56 Ohio App.3d 111. The party contesting the timeliness of an R.C. 119.12 notice of appeal has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption resulting from the timely mailing of the notice; an administrative agency may not overcome this presumption by merely introducing the agency's time-stamped date of reception of the notice of appeal.

Esselburne v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 37; cert denied 40 Ohio St.3d 710. Prospective lack of work alone is an insufficient premise for abolishing a position pursuant to R.C. 124.321(D); the burden is on the appointing authority to demonstrate a lack of work, which, for the purpose of abolishing the position, must be expected to last more than twelve months. The burden may be proven where the appointing authority provides a "comparison between current work levels and work levels when a lack of work did not exist, which may include statistical data and additional supporting materials.

Honaker v. Scioto County Common Pleas Court (Dec. 6, 1993), Scioto App. No. 92-CA-2087, unreported, 1993 WL 524974. Where the appointing authority has the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that an employee is in the unclassified service, it does not have to establish that the employee spends the majority of his or her time performing duties of an unclassified nature; it is sufficient to show that the employee performed some duties of an unclassified nature. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Mintus v. Trumbull County Child Support (Feb. 18, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-12-9035, unreported; aff'd (Apr. 25, 1995), Franklin App. No. 94APE10-1469, unreported, 1995 WL 250836. The party contesting the timeliness of an R.C. 119.12 notice of appeal has the burden of proof of rebutting the presumption resulting from the timely mailing of the notice; an administrative agency may not overcome this presumption by merely introducing the agency's time-stamped date of reception of the notice of appeal. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision (Merits) | View Common Pleas Decision (Timeliness Issue) | View SPBR Order

Taylor, et al. v. Franklin County Sheriff (June 9, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF02-1295, unreported. While failure to prove all of the allegations is not fatal to a disciplinary order, failure to prove any of the allegations requires removal. View Common Pleas Decision

Campbell v. Franklin County Sheriff (Aug. 31, 1990), Franklin Co., Nos. 90-CVH-04-2800 and 90-CVH-04-2766, unreported. Where the appointing authority merely construes circumstantial evidence to place blame solely on appellant, it does not meet its burden of proof by preponderance of the evidence. View Common Pleas Decision

Campbell v. Franklin County Sheriff (Aug. 31, 1990), Franklin Co., Nos. 90-CVH-04-2800 and 90-CVH-04-2766, unreported. Absent any proof that the reputation of the Franklin County sheriff's department was injured, appellant's misdeameanor violation of a safety statute in another county and subsequent report of the incident to the appointing authority in compliance with departmental regulations does not constitute unbecoming conduct sufficient to warrant suspension or removal. View Common Pleas Decision

Henry v. Oakwood Forensic Center (May 1, 1991), PBR 90-LAY-02-0063; aff'd (June 17, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (NO DATE), Franklin Co., No. 91CV06-5047, unreported. In an abolishment premised on reorganization for efficiency, the permanent (more than one year) lack of need that must be proven is a lack of need for the position, not a lack of need for the duties to be performed; the appointing authority meets its burden of proof as long as it can demonstrate that some of the duties of the position are no longer needed and that the ones that are still needed can be efficiently and economically assumed by an employee who is already in place. View SPBR Order

Burrows v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction (May 20, 1994), PBR Case No. 94-RED-01-0009; aff'd (July 1, 1994) Full Board. Failure of the involved parties to consider the alleged events to be of sufficient concern as to require the filing of incident reports at the time of the alleged events, and the fact that subsequent filings of statements by the involved parties were made only upon the request of the appointing authority, may be considered when determining whether or not an employee's discipline was appropriate for the alleged infractions. View SPBR Order

Riles v. Lucas County Sheriff (Apr. 25, 1994), PBR Case No. 93-REM-09-0569; aff'd (June 20, 1994) Full Board. While an agency has a compelling interest in protecting public safety and security by deterring and detecting drug abuse by its employees, courts have specifically placed a limitation on this interest by requiring that urinalysis testing be based on reasonable suspicion; where an investigation does not establish with any reasonable degree of certainty that appellant was using drugs and a physical search fails to confirm the presence of drugs on appellant's person or in her belongings, appellee did not have a reasonable suspicion on which to base a urine test. View SPBR Order

Randleman v. Ohio Veteran's Home (Nov. 12, 1986), PBR 85-REM-10-1541. Where the appointing authority shows only that appellant transported a parcel to another employee's automobile at the employee's request and fails to demonstrate that appellant knew or had reason to know that the parcel contained state property to which the requesting employee was not entitled, the appointing authority has not met its burden of proof to demonstrate that appellant was dishonest. View SPBR Order

Fultz v. Chillicothe Correctional Institution (Oct. 23, 1986), PBR 86-REM-05-0577. An involuntary disability separation is the appropriate discipline where an employee cannot perform the duties of his position due to a medical condition; the burden is on the employee to show that his medical condition has been brought under control. View SPBR Order