State, ex rel. Dispatch Printing Co. v. Wells (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 382. Disclosure of personnel files, including order of demotion, is granted when the right to know by the public outweighs the right of personal privacy of the individual.

State, ex rel. Osborn v. Jackson (1976), 46 Ohio St.2d 41. Director of State department of transportation does not have right of appeal to court of common pleas from order of the state personnel board of review disaffirming Director's order laying off employee; State of Ohio is not "party adversely affected" within meaning of provision of administrative procedure act allowing appeal to common pleas court.

Carroll v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (1983) 10 Ohio App.3d 108. The director of administrative services may not issue rules which are unreasonable, which conflict with statutory enactments covering the subject matter, or which add to his delegated powers; where the director of administrative services issues a rule which is outside his authority to promulgate, that rule is illegal and any failure to obey an order made pursuant to that rule cannot constitute insubordination.

In re Job Abolishment of Jenkins (1963) 120 Ohio App. 385. Appointing authority was not "party" whose interests were subject of adjudication by agency within statute authorizing parties adversely affected by order of agency to appeal to Court of Common Pleas, and appointing authority thus was not authorized to appeal to that court from decision of the state personnel board of review disaffirming appointing authority's abolition of position.

MacKnight v. Lake County Dept. of Human Services (Oct. 31), 1995), Franklin App. No. 95APE02-188, unreported, 1995 WL 645258. The state personnel board of review lacks jurisdiction to set appellant's salary when appellant displaces into a bargaining unit position subsequent to the abolishment of her position in the exempt classified service. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Jarvis v. Clermont County Auditor (June 19, 1995), Clermont App. No. CA95-01-004, unreported, 1995 WL 367196; cert denied (1995) 74 Ohio St.3d 1422. Where there are statutory remedies through which an employee may proceed when she believes her appointing authority to be in violation of the Ohio Revised Code, appellant may not use her personal opinion of the legality of the appointing authority's procedures to justify her failure to comply with them.

Beck v. Harrison County Dept. of Human Services (Oct. 23, 1992), Harrison App. No. 443, unreported, 1992 WL 314219. The absence of an effective date on an R.C. 124.34 order of removal is more than a procedural error, it is an effective error and the order must be disaffirmed; violation of the service rule, where it does not violate due process and does not deny the affected employee the right to a timely appeal, does not merit disaffirmance of the removal order.

Turner v. Madison Correctional Institution (Aug. 19, 1992), Clark App. No. 2863, unreported, 1992 WL 206647. Disparate treatment is only relevant to disciplinary sanctions imposed upon persons in similar situations; the necessary similarities include both the action that is the cause of the discipline and the relative positions of the employee.

State, ex rel. Carver v. Hull (Mar. 10, 1992), Scioto App. No. 1907, unreported, 1992 WL 486355. An order of the state personnel board of review is not discretionary because it offers a choice between complying with the order or the board's recommendation that the governor dismiss the appointing authority, as orders are often written to include a warning of possible sanction; no one would seriously contend that a party so ordered may flout a valid order simply because the court has indicated the kind of sanction it might impose.

Solsman v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Oct. 16, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF07-5199, unreported. While it is true that state administrative agency hearings must accord the parties procedural fairness, it is also true that tribunals have the authority to determine their jurisdiction; no state board or commission can be compelled to expend its limited time and resources in reviewing every matter bought before it without regard to the statutory propriety of its authority to hear the issues. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Butler County Sheriff v. Brown (Feb. 2, 1993), PBR 93-REM-01-0081; aff'd (Feb. 14, 1994), Butler Co., No. CV93-02-0200, unreported. Sheriff-elect has no authority to remove an employee prior to assuming the office of Sheriff. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Taylor, et al. v. Franklin County Sheriff (June 9, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF02-1295, unreported. Failure to exercise good judgment does not appear to be a ground for disciplinary action by an appointing authority. View Common Pleas Decision

Fillmore v. Ottawa County Riverview Nursing Home (Sept. 24, 1992), Ottawa Co., No. 92-CVF-053. R.C. 5155.01 empowers a county home administrator to appoint employees; therefore, the administrator of a county home is the appointing authority of the home, within the meaning of R.C. 124.01(D) and 124.34. View Common Pleas Decision

Finch v. Clermont County Board of Commissioners (Oct. 9, 1991), Clermont Co., No. 91CV-0652, unreported. Boards of commissioners cannot act through the individual commissioners; the requirement that an order of removal contain the signatures of the board members or a copy of the resolution authorizing such action prior to the consideration of the state personnel board of review of any order is reasonable. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Williams v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation and Corrections (Dec. 8, 1993), PBR 93-RMD-04-0529; aff'd (Jan. 21, 1994), Full Board. Where an appointing authority's signature on a R.C. 124.34 removal order results from the pressure of a pen on carbon paper, that signature is an original signature within the meaning of O.A.C. 124-03-01(A)(1). View Common Pleas Decision

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

Finney-Braner v. Madison County Dept. of Human Services (Jan. 4, 1994), PBR 92-REM-01-0004 and 91-RED-06-0394; aff'd (Jan. 26, 1994), Full Board. The failure to report the possible abuse of a child is a serious allegation and may be regarded in a more serious light than other allegations. View SPBR Order

Troyer v. Holmes County Dept. of Human Services (Apr. 22, 1986), PBR 86-REM-02-0113. If an employer can present credible evidence that an employee is untrustworthy, that employer may take what disciplinary action it deems appropriate, whether that disciplinary action involves suspension, reduction, removal, or some other lawful punishment deemed appropriate. View SPBR Order

Duggan v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Feb. 14, 1985), PBR 84-INV-09-1250. The department of natural resources is without authority to promulgate a policy which requires any of its employees to live within the confines of a certain county in order to continue their employment with the agency; the enforcement of such a policy is an abuse of discretion by the appointing authority. View SPBR Order

    A. Progressive Discipline Policy

Carmichael v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (June 10, 1993), Franklin App. No. 92AP-1707, unreported, 1993 WL 220885. R.C. 124.34 provides that a classified employee may be dismissed for insubordination or neglect of duty regardless of whether or not the rules of progressive discipline have been followed. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Ohio Dept. of Human Services v. Shipka (Dec. 17, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-789, unreported, 1991 WL 274916. Although no progressive discipline statute exists, the absence of such a standard does not preclude the state personnel board of review from examining the lack of previous discipline as a mitigating circumstance; the board's consideration of appellant's employment record was within the purview of its mandate under R.C. 124.03(A), and does not constitute introduction of a doctrine of progressive discipline for public employees in Ohio. View SPBR Order

Freeman v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (May 22, 1984), Richland App. No. CA-2217, unreported, 1984 WL 7510. A departmental directive dealing with procedures to be followed prior to disciplinary action in compliance with R.C. 124.34 is a guideline and does not establish an obligation to adhere to a schedule of progressive discipline. View Court of Appeals Decision

Sisler v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety (Oct. 9, 1990), PBR 89-RED-08-0462; aff'd (Apr. 20, 1993), Delaware Co., No. 90CVF-10-609. Disciplinary action meted out under R.C. 124.34 may not be imposed based only on the beliefs of an employee under review as such a disciplinary system would punish an indvidual's status rather than his or her conduct; the statute requires misconduct on the part of the individual, which must be proven by the appointing authority. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Ohio Dept. of Human Services v. Shipka (June 12, 1991), Franklin Co., No. 90CVF-12-9872, unreported. A recommendation that a disciplined employee be given a "second chance" rather than be removed, and an opinion that the employee should be placed on notice as to the directives of his supervisors do not create a requirement for progressive discipline. View Common Pleas Decision

Conley v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners (Dec. 29, 1992), PBR 92-REM-07-0510; aff'd (Jan. 22, 1993), Full Board. Where appellant has failed consistently for more than one and one-half years to meet production goals, despite counseling and various other attempts to offer assistance, and the appointing authority has satisfactorily established a history of prior and progressive discipline, removal is an appropriate form of discipline. View SPBR Order

Quinn v. Lucas County Sheriff (Nov. 7, 1990), PBR 90-SUS-04-0174. Following the principles of progressive discipline, a sixty-day suspension is appropriate discipline where a corrections officer grabbed an inmate by the back of the neck in such a manner as to leave scratches and cuts around the neck area and upper back, but the use of force was not effected by the corrections officer in order to protect himself. View SPBR Order

Bleininger v. Tuscarawas County Dept. of Human Services (Sept. 29, 1982), PBR 82-REM-06-2080. An employee may not be removed for failure of good behavior where employer fails to follow progressive discipline scheme and generally permits the employee to behave in such a manner; suspension, however, may be an appropriate discipline. View SPBR Order