Collier v. Harrison County Auditor (June 28, 2002), Harrison App. 00-523-CA, unreported, 2002-Ohio-3468. Laches does not bar a second removal of employee outside the two-year period, where employee's original removal as an unclassified employee was disaffirmed by SPBR and second removal was issued within 30 days of disaffirmance; Appellee took action upon discovery of the allegation, had an excuse for the delay and Appellant was not prejudiced as he knew of the allegation and could have obtained evidence to defend himself. View Court of Appeals Decision

Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Sept. 16, 1996), Marion App. No. 9-96-25, unreported, 1996 WL 518116. Statues of limitations are binding, but laches are not; in order for parties to claim laches, they must show that the person for whose benefit the doctrine will operate has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting the claim; material prejudice will not be inferred from a mere lapse of time. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Sept. 16, 1996), Marion App. No. 9-96-25, unreported, 1996 WL 518116. Substantial compliance with O.A.C. 124-3-04 is found when the time within which the order is filed is reasonable, because the rule creates no absolute measurement of law but, rather, establishes one parameter for measuring the reasonableness of the disciplinary action taken. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Sept. 16, 1996), Marion App. No. 9-96-25, unreported, 1996 WL 518116. While it is permissible to terminate an employee who has already been removed a second time in order to limit possible damages, it is not necessary; lack of a second order will not prevent an employee's termination at a later time for subsequent improper actions learned about while an appeal of the first termination was pending. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Sept. 16, 1996), Marion App. No. 9-96-25, unreported, 1996 WL 518116. Application of the doctrine of laches is inappropriate where the passage of time is due to other litigation concerning the subject of the action. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Hayes v. Montgomery County Board of Commissioners (Sept. 22, 1995), Montgomery App. No. 15086, unreported, 1995 WL 558801. Where appellant was removed for failing to truthfully answer questions on her employment application, the later expungement of her felony conviction does not affect the basis of her termination; the removal is based on dishonesty, not conviction of a crime.

State, ex rel. Carver v. Hull (Mar. 10, 1992), Scioto App. No. 1907, unreported, 1992 WL 486355. Where appellant diligently pursues her rights but resolution is delayed by appellee, laches does not apply; laches, being an equitable defense, is not available to a party who himself has been guilty of delay.

Blinn v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Feb. 20, 1992), Franklin App. No. 91AP-763, unreported, 1992 WL 276603. In applying the doctrine of laches, the person who delayed in asserting the legal right must provide an explanation for the delay that is reasonable under the circumstances; in addition, the party asserting the defense must demonstrate that he has been materially prejudiced by the delay of the person asserting his claim.

Martin v. Franklin County Sheriff (June 25, 1991) Franklin App. No. 90AP-1342, unreported, 1991 WL 123981. The two-year "laches" rule codified in O.A.C. 124-3-04 is subject to tolling where appellant requests continuances during the course of investigation and disciplinary proceedings; O.A.C. 124-3-04 is a valid exercise of the state personnel board of review's rule-making authority because it creates no absolute measurement of law but rather establishes one parameter for measuring the reasonableness of the disciplinary action taken. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Brown v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Jan. 1992), Marion Co., No. 90CI-1085, unreported. An appointing authority has no standing to assert that the "laches rule" exceeds the authority of the state personnel board of review and is an unreasonable rule.