State, ex rel. Carver v. Hull (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 570. R.C. 124.56 contains no provision for the rights of an employee insofar as an investigation for violation of R.C. Ch. 124. is concerned; the statue contemplates only an investigation of an appointing authority for abuses in employee appointments, layoffs, reductions, suspensions or removals.

State, ex rel. Carver v. Hull (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 570. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction to determine recall rights under R.C. 124.03(A).

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.

Bispeck v. Trumbull County (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 26. An action in mandamus is a proper course by which laid-off county employees may seek to compel their employer to abide by orders of the state personnel board of review disaffirming their layoffs (citing State, ex rel. Potten v. Kuth (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 321).

Fenton v. Enharo (1987), 31 Ohio St.3d 69. Because the Columbus City Charter is not silent with respect to the jurisdictional prerequisities for the civil service commission, and because R.C. 124.03(A) conflicts with 149-1 of the charter, the Columbus civil service commission lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals of layoffs pursuant to R.C. 124.03 and 124.40(A).

Carter v. Ohio Dept. of Health (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 463. Where the appointing authority complies with all procedural requirements and statutes and properly arranges through DAS to sub-contract their data entry work with a private firm, it may properly abolish employee positions for reasons of economy within the scope of R.C. 124.321(D).

Weston v. Ferguson (1983), 8 Ohio St.3d 52. A civil service employee may not be removed under the guise of abolishing his office when in fact the transaction amounts to no more than a change in the name of the position and the appointment of another person, the duties remaining substantially the same; the theory is that a position may be abolished but not a person.

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.

State, ex rel. Potten v. Kuth (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 321. In order for a layoff of an employee in the classified state service to be effective, the appointing authority must substantially comply with the procedural requirements promulgated by the director of administrative services pursuant to R.C. 124.32.

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.

Esselburne v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (1988), 49 Ohio App.3d 37; cert denied 40 Ohio St.3d 710. A position is abolished only when the position is permanently deleted from the organization or structure of the appointing authority; abolishment may not be accomplished simply by transferring the duties of a classified employee to an unclassified employee, since the position is not abolished.

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.

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.

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.

Ludwig v. Willoughby-Eastlake City School District Board of Education (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 229. Appeals by laid-off classified employees in the "state service" from orders of the state personnel board of review are to be made to the court of common pleas of Franklin County, and appeals by laid-off classified employees of a municipal civil service commission are to be made to the court of common pleas of the county in which the employee resides.

Metzgar v. Summit County Children Services Board (1982), 8 Ohio App.3d 168. An appointing authority may not deprive an employee of benefits accruing to a full-time regular civil service employee by laying off the employee from a full-time permanent position because of lack of work and then retaining the employee forty hours a week as an "extra" to fill in at various work locations, at irregular hours and performing the same duties as before.

State, ex rel. Click v. Thormyer (1958), 105 Ohio App. 479. Where a job is abolished and the services of one under civil service law protection are terminated, the abolition must be done in good faith and not merely to separate an employee from his job; and, in such case, the actual duties rather than the mere title will be looked to to determine the good faith of such job abolishment.

State, ex rel. Click v. Thormyer (1958), 105 Ohio App. 479. Where a job is abolished "as a matter of economy" and a civil service employee discharged, and immediately thereafter another employee is hired under a different classification but to perform substantially the same duties and to work with the same crew, and where both job classifications are in the same pay range, such purported abolishment is a subterfuge and is not effective, and the discharged employee is entitled to a writ of mandamus restoring him to his former position.

Manley v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Jan 4, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APE07-880, unreported, 1996 WL 11258. Pursuant to O.A.C. 123:1-7-16(C), in the event of a layoff or job abolishment, an employee in a holding classification may displace into the classification series from which he or she was originally reassigned, provided the former classification has an equivalent or lower pay range. View Court of Appeals Decision

Lupo v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Aug. 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 95APE01-0039 and 95APE01-0044, unreported, 1995 WL 491394. It is permissible for the assistant director to sign a job abolishment letter on behalf of the director where there is no evidence that the signature was unauthorized or contrary to the director's intent. View Common Pleas Decision (1994) | View Common Pleas Decision (1993) | View SPBR Order (Remand) | View SPBR Order

Lupo v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Aug. 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 95APE01-0039 and 95APE01-0044, unreported, 1995 WL 491394. The law does not prohibit an employer from knowingly and purposely abolishing the position of a provisional employee immediately before the employee becomes certified, where the employee's position is abolished for a permitted reason. View Common Pleas Decision (1994) | View Common Pleas Decision (1993) | View SPBR Order (Remand) | View SPBR Order

Lupo v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Aug. 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 95APE01-0039 and 95APE01-0044, unreported, 1995 WL 491394. When an employee who had previously exercised her displacement rights was displaced from her new position, her current displacement rights should be based upon her previous position. View Common Pleas Decision (1994) | View Common Pleas Decision (1993) | View SPBR Order (Remand) | 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. Where the status of appellant's position in the classified service is changed to unclassified and appellant is removed from the position six months later, the appellant may avail herself of the "bumping provisions" of R.C. 124.321 et seq.; it is the displacement that triggers the right to bump, and displace means to take out a particular service.

Fragassi, et al. v. Lorain County Board of Commissioners (Mar. 14, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 94APE07-950 et seq., unreported, 1995 WL 115498. Where the county commissioners administer an undercover anti-drug investigation unit and subsequently abolish all of the positions in the unit, the existence of similar positions in the sheriff's department anti-drug unit do not result in a transfer of the job duties of an abolished position to a new employee, as prohibited by Esselburne; the sheriff's department functions as a separate and distinct appointing authority from the county commissioners. View SPBR Order

Shoemaker v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Mar. 17, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-08-1180, unreported, 1994 WL 85587. Where there is substantial merger of two positions for purpose of economy and no proof of ulterior motive by employing officer, or discrimination upon political, religious or other improper grounds, writ of mandamus will not be granted to require reinstatement of employee discharged as result of merger (citing State, ex rel. Stine v. McCaw (1940), 137 Ohio St. 13). View SPBR Order

Downard v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (May 6, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-101, unreported, 1993 WL 150505. An abolishment does not necessarily result in a layoff; employees who cannot productively function within an agency may be offered early retirement, transfer, reassignment or other options. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Downard v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (May 6, 1993), Franklin App. No. 93AP-101, unreported, 1993 WL 150505. Although 11 of HB 222 does not prevent the Industrial Commission either from removing an employee for cause or from abolishing a position, it does preclude the Commission from laying off an employee; all employees who are affected by any aspect of the changes and reorganization set forth in Section 1 of HB 222 are protected. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Arthers v. Young (May 9, 1991), Tuscarawas App. No. 90AP-11-0064, unreported, 1991 WL 87200. The appointing authority's mistake in sending a retired employee a letter notifying him of a layoff and a notice to return to work following arbitration did not confer employee status on appellant and appellant is not entitled to receive back pay accruing from the time of his retirement to the time of his subsequent reinstatement.

Albright v. Jackson (May 15, 1990), Franklin App. No. 89AP-1215, unreported, 1990 WL 63041. Courts do not have jurisdiction to consider job abolishments where the affected employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that provides for binding arbitration. View Court of Appeals Decision

Esselburne v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (May 7, 1985), Franklin App. No. 84AP-791. O.A.C. 123:1-5-08 may not be used to accomplish something which the statutory scheme does not allow, to the extent that this occurs, the administrative rule is inconsistent with R.C. 124.321(D); therefore, to the extent that it allows appellants to be terminated while not actually abolishing their positions, O.A.C. 123:1-5-08 is inconsistent with R.C. 123.321(D).

Scalise v. Summit County Sheriff (Apr. 25, 1985), Franklin App. No. 84AP-901, unreported, 1985 WL 10265. An employee's alleged improper classification after the exercise of displacement rights as a laid-off employee is not properly considered in the appeal of the layoff itself, but may be the subject of a separate appeal. View Court of Appeals Decision

In re Appeal of Rawat v. Toledo Mental Health Center (May 15, 1984), Franklin App. No. 83AP-980, unreported, 1984 WL 5748. The requirement that an appointing authority provide a rationale and documentation when abolishing a position does not assure that the decision made by the appointing authority will reflect the best judgment available, since policy decisions are within the discretion of the appointing authority; the statute merely limits the appointing authority's discretion to the extent that the abolishment must be the product of some rational decision, and that facts must exist upon which the decision may be logically grounded.

In the Matter of the Appeal of Landsberger, et al. v. East Palestine City School District Board of Education, et al. (April 5, 1984), Columbiana App. No. 83-C-6, unreported, 1984 WL 7691. The layoff procedures of R.C. 124.321 et seq. may not be circumvented by across-the-board reductions in hours under the purported authority of R.C. 124.34, which applies only to disciplinary reductions.

Cliff v. Oney (Dec. 21, 1979), Franklin App. No. 78-AP-342, unreported. Where an appointing authority fails to comply with the procedural requirements required for a layoff, but can demonstrate that there has been substantial compliance with the statutory requirements and that the non-compliance constitutes harmless error, the state personnel board of review may consider the substantial compliance in determining whether or not to affirm the action of the appointing authority.

State, ex rel. Henslee v. Krabach (Oct. 14, 1976), Franklin App. No. 76AP-559, unreported. Writ of mandamus denied as to an employee who was restored to state employment subsequent to a layoff and upon her return was given a different desk, chair and physical tasks than she had before the layoff, when work assignments and internal personal management decisions are the prerogative of the employer.

Collyer v. Ohio Dept. of MR/DD (Aug. 12, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF07-5023, unreported. Because the State Personnel Board of Review has jurisdiction over layoff appeals brought by classified employees from final decisions of appointing authorities, where Appellant was involuntary disability separated at the time the facility at which he worked was closed and the record does not indicate that the appointing authority made any order regarding Appellant's layoff from that facility, the Board has no jurisdiction to take any action regarding the layoff. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Joys v. University of Toledo (June 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF12-9016, unreported. The decision of Appellant to take PERS retirement benefits immediately after Appellant's job was abolished does not moot Appellant's appeal of the job abolishment to the State Personnel Board of Review; R.C. 145.38(B)(1) allows a PERS retired individual to become reemployed by the state, therefore, the Board would not have been without remedy if the job abolishment were disaffirmed. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Gonzales, et al., v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (June 29, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF02-0819, unreported. Changes in the scope of duties, physical location, and additional duties given to newly created district coordinator position justified the abolishment of regional manager and regional supervisor positions; although goals of economic savings and increased efficiency may not yet have been realized, there was no evidence to suggest that the reorganization was not based on these goals. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

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

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

Blye v. University of Cincinnati (July 21, 1992) Franklin Co., No. 92CVF-03-2517, unreported. An appeal of a layoff or job abolishment must be filed with the state personnel board of review within ten days of receipt of notice of the layoff or abolishment; the ten-day time period began to run on the date which Appellant received notice of the abolishment of his position in April, not on his last date of actual employment or the date his last paycheck was received. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Moon v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (July 15, 1991), PBR 90-REM-12-1119; aff'd (Sept. 26, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (June 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF10-8225, unreported. Where reinstating an employee to a newly created position and pay range closely matching the job duties of his or her former position would create a position so similar in duties that it would be considered a bargaining unit position, O.A.C. 123:1-24-03(D) requires that the employee be treated as laid off and placed on a layoff list in his or her former classification as a certified employee. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Arthurs v. Tuscarawas County Engineer (Feb. 1987), Tuscarawas Co., No. 86-CVO80272, unreported. Appointing authority has not proved a lack of need for the abolished positions for reasons of economy where, prior to the abolishment, the appointing authority did not perform a determination of economic feasability; did not know the extent of funding for the coming year; and did not otherwise comply with the applicable procedures mandated by statute. View Common Pleas Decision

Bossinger v. Benfield (Dec. 11, 1978), Franklin Co., No. 79-CV-11-5087. Certification of lack of funds to the director of budget and management or the director of administrative services pursuant to O.A.C. 123:1-41-01 is not required of a state university prior to laying off employees for lack of funds.

Sanders v. Ohio Dept. of MR/DD (Mar. 18, 1992), PBR 91-LAY-07-0409; aff'd (Apr. 17, 1992), Full Board. R.C. 124.34 does not entitle a state employee to "bump" into a current position that has a different classification from, but may or may not have performed the same duties as, a previous position prior to the classification modernization study implemented by the state of Ohio. View SPBR Order

Rider v. Mahoning County Sheriff (May 29, 1991), PBR 90-LAY-08-0872; aff'd (Sept., 1992) Franklin Co., No. 91CVF06-4709, unreported. A job abolishment does not necessitate the complete deletion of a set of duties so much as it requires the deletion of an employee to perform those duties when the duties could be encompassed under another employee's job function. View SPBR Order

Vinegar v. University of Cincinnati (Nov. 23, 1987), PBR 87-REC-09-0696. Posting an occupied position violates the layoff statutes of R.C. 124.321 et seq. View SPBR Order

Seyer v. Putnam County Sheriff (Jan. 16, 1986), PBR 85-LAY-03-0461. Pursuant to Esselburne v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 152, an appointing authority may reclassify employees as exempt, assign some of the duties of classified employees to those newly-exempt employees, and abolish the positions of the classified employees due to lack of work. View SPBR Order

Heiny v. University of Toledo (Sept. 10, 1985), PBR 85-LAY-04-0549. Where a classified intermittent employee is not assigned work during a period because there is no demand for his or her services, the employee is not laid off. View SPBR Order

    A. Bad Faith

Blinn v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 77. The existence of bad faith in the transfer and promotion of civil service employees does not depend upon a finding that the employer acted with a political or personal animus, or failed to comply with procedural requirements; where the intent and consequence of the employer's method is to subvert the civil service system to allow the selection of handpicked employees to fill jobs that should have been available to workers based on seniority and retention points, bad faith has been shown.

State, ex rel. Gould v. Bureau of Employment Services (1985), 28 Ohio App.3d 30. "Bad faith" within the meaning of O.A.C. 124-7-01(A) may be established by showing appropriate evidence or inferences therefrom that the job abolishment was not made in good faith and was used as a subterfuge to subvert the civil service system.

Swepston v. Board of Tax Appeals of Ohio (1993), 89 Ohio App.3d 629. A job abolishment cannot be undertaken simply because the incumbent is a long-time employee with high seniority and a higher salary than that which would be paid to a new hire; such an abolishment constitutes an attempt to subvert the civil service system and may be considered "bad faith," as set forth in Blinn v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (1985), 29 Ohio App.3d 77, 80. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

Lupo v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Aug. 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 95APE01-0039 and 95APE01-0044, unreported, 1995 WL 491394. The law does not prohibit an employer from knowingly and purposely abolishing the position of a provisional employee immediately before the employee becomes certified, where the employee's position is abolished for a permitted reason. View Common Pleas Decision (1994) | View Common Pleas Decision (1993) | View SPBR Order (Remand) | View SPBR Order

Lupo v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Aug. 15, 1995), Franklin App. Nos. 95APE01-0039 and 95APE01-0044, unreported, 1995 WL 491394. Where the abolishment of two positions into which Appellant could have displaced served no organizational purpose other than to prevent appellant's continued employment, the abolishment provides some competent, credible evidence to support a finding of bad faith. View Common Pleas Decision (1994) | View Common Pleas Decision (1993) | View SPBR Order (Remand) | View SPBR Order

Shoemaker v. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (Mar. 17, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-08-1180, unreported, 1994 WL 85587. A statement made by employee's supervisor that may or may not have alluded to the employee's political ties was not sufficient to establish bad faith in regard to an employee's job abolishment when the abolishments were conducted on a state-wide basis and affected twenty-seven additional positions. View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Esselburne v. Maurer (May 28, 1991), Franklin App. No. 89AP-953, unreported, 1991 WL 94443. Attorney fees are not ordinarily recoverable but may be awarded where it is demonstrated that an action is defended in bad faith, namely, continuing litigation that is obdurate, vexatious, wanton, or engaged in for oppressive reasons; where a justiciable issue exists, it is not bad faith for an appointing authority to contest a mandamus action.

Cappelletti v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Dec. 24, 1986), Franklin App. No. 86AP-391, unreported, 1986 WL 14867. Where evidence indicates that an appointing authority's initial attempt at reorganization and job abolishments was determined to be illegal; that the appointing authority did not, in fact, restore the duties of those employees whose positions were wrongfully abolished; and that the appointing authority attempted to abolish the same positions pursuant to a supposed second reorganization; the second attempt at abolishing the employees' positions is a sham as no second organization actually took place, and the employees should be reinstated and their original job duties restored. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision

Feeney v. Ohio Dept. of Public Safety (Mar. 12, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF04-2892, unreported. Although the timing of an abolishment may appear suspicious when appellant's position was abolished shortly after appellant's reinstatement from a removal disaffirmed by the state personnel board of review, appellant failed to prove bad faith where appellee did not replace appellant with another employee during appellant's initial separation, and has not put someone else in appellant's place since the abolishment. View Common Pleas Decision

Stafford v. Ohio Dept. of Health (Dec. 4, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF11-8236, unreported. Where appellant's prima facie case of bad faith is rebutted by appellee, there is no evidence of an attempt to subvert the civil service system and no other employee was hired or favored in any way as the result of appellant's layoff, appellant has not proven bad faith sufficient to disaffirm a job abolishment. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Biggins v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (July 2, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 92CVF-12-9897, unreported. Where Appellant's position is abolished and the appointing authority asserts that there exists no employee with less seniority within Appellant's class, and Appellant has no personal knowledge or documentation to show that there is such a person but only hearsay and innuendo to support his claim, there is no bad faith on the part of the appointing authority in telling Appellant that there was no one within his layoff jurisdiction district for him to displace. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Tonti v. Ohio Dept. of Commerce (Jan. 30, 1987) Franklin Co., No. 84CV-11-6823. Where evidence indicates that an appointing authority's initial attempt at reorganization and job abolishments was determined to be illegal; that the appointing authority did not, in fact, restore the duties of those employees whose positions were wrongfully abolished; and that the appointing authority attempted to abolish the same positions pursuant to a supposed second reorganization; the second attempt at abolishing the employees' positions is a sham as no second organization actually took place, and the employees should be reinstated and their original job duties restored. View Common Pleas Decision