Kennedy v. Marion Correctional Institution (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 20. Reduction of captain to sergeant based on his repeated sexual harrassment of female correctional officers who worked under his supervision is appropriate discipline. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Weiss v. Industrial Commission of Ohio (1992), 65 Ohio St.3d 470; cert denied 66 Ohio St.3d 1414. When isolated from the alleged reductions of her duties and discharge, the removal of appellant's position from the classified service is not expressly covered by R.C. 124.03; however, this does not remove the state personnel board of review's jurisdiction to consider that issue along with other adverse job actions. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

State, ex rel. Belknap v. Lavelle (1985), 18 Ohio St.3d 180. Where an appointing authority is not required to provide health insurance to its employees and has the option to pay only a portion of the premium if it chooses to provide such insurance, a county employee's loss of fully paid hospitalization coverage does not constitute a reduction in pay. View Court of Appeals Decision

Harris v. Lewis (1982), 69 Ohio St.2d 577. A classified employee's pay may not be reduced for any reason other than those listed in R.C. 124.34; only disciplinary reductions can be appealed to the courts, and such appeal must be brought in the county of the employee's residence.

State, ex rel. LanFranchi v. Summit County Board of MR/DD (1988) 46 Ohio App.3d 71. Where the subject of an appeal to the state personnel board of review is an alleged "reduction in pay" which did not result from any disciplinary proceeding pursuant to R.C. 124.34, and where the appellant had no actual notice of the order appealed from prior to receiving written notice thereof, former O.A.C. 124-1-03(C), the "catch-all" provision, contains the applicable time limit for filing the appeal.

Stokes v. Sneed (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 207. R.C. 124.34 does not afford a right of appeal to the court of common pleas from an order of the state personnel board of review modifying a civil service employee's reduction in position to a suspension in the absence of some demonstration that the reduction in position also involved a reduction in pay (Scott v. Reinier (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 67 distinguished).

Veney v. Massilon Psychiatric Center (June 7, 1994), Franklin App. No. 93APE-12-1684, unreported, 1994 WL 250243. O.A.C. 124-5-02 gives employees an opportunity to prove (where no order has been filed with the state personnel board of review) that formal action was, in fact, taken to effectuate a reduction in position; informal action is not appealable, grounds lie only where there is formal agency action giving rise to a final decision.

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.

Dehner v. Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (May 12, 1983), Cuyahoga App. No. 45598, unreported. R.C. 6119.37(A) continues state civil service, for purposes of removal or reductions in pay or position, for any employee of a political subdivision covered by the classified civil service who becomes a sewer district employee when that employee's facility is transferred to the sewer district; typically, that provision applies to an employee of a county or non-chartered city whose employment transfers to the sewer district with the facility employing him. View Court of Appeals Decision

Lang v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Oct. 4, 1996), Washington Co., No. 96AA23, unreported. The fact that an employee does not accept a position change voluntarily does not demonstrate that a reduction in position, as defined by O.A.C. 124-1-02(W), has occurred. View SPBR Order

Solsman v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Feb. 29, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF08-5696, unreported. A reduction in duties constitutes a reduction in position only when the reductions are those which so redefine an employee's duties that an audit of those duties would compel a reclassification to a lower pay range. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Solsman v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Feb. 26, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF07-5142, unreported. Where the results of a job audit indicate that appellant's job duties were not changed sufficiently to result in a reduction in position, appellant must file an appeal of the results of that job audit in order to prevent his earlier-filed appeal of his alleged improper reduction from becoming moot. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Pugin v. Allen County Sheriff's Office (Dec. 25, 1995), Allen Co., No. CV95-07-0323, unreported. Appellant's failure of good behavior in failing to provide requested information is sufficient to support reduction in rank from lieutenant to sergeant, but not removal. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Wilkerson v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Dec. 1, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF05-3438, unreported. Not every reduction of a state employee requires an order pursuant to R.C. 124.34; the statute applies where there has been an involuntary reduction, removal or suspension for more than three days. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Wilkerson v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services (Dec. 1, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF05-3438, unreported. An employee does not need to receive written notice of a reduction where the employee has previously agreed, however reluctantly, to the reduction; the O.A.C. has a ninety-day appeal period for those non-disciplinary situations where notice is not required because the employee is already aware of the reduction. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Caldwell v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (May 25, 1993), Ashtabula Co., No. 93855, unreported. The court of common pleas of the county of employee's residence is the proper forum only for appeals of disciplinary removals and reductions in pay; all other types of personnel actions are appealable exclusively in Franklin County. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Sisler v. Ohio Dept. of Highway Safety (Oct. 9, 1990), PBR 89-RED-08-0462; aff'd (Apr. 20, 1993), Delaware Co., No. 90CV-F-10-609. A charge of failure to perform one's duties in a satisfactory manner due to making disparaging comments of a sexual and/or racial nature to other employees, standing alone, does not merit a disciplinary reduction. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Kilburn v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Nov. 22, 1991), Warren Co., No. 49151, unreported. A "commute policy" which deducts a specified amount from the pay of any employee who uses a state-owned vehicle to commute to and from their residence does not represent a "reduction in pay"; if there is no reduction for disciplinary purposes then, pursuant to R.C. 124.34, there is no right of appeal to the employee's local court of common pleas. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Reiss v. Central Ohio Psychiatric Hospital (Nov. 15, 1986), Franklin Co., No. 86CV-04-2159. It is within the power of the director of administrative services to establish a shift differential for employees pursuant to R.C. 124.181(I); loss of a shift differential does not constitute a reduction in pay. View Common Pleas Decision

Mitton v. State Personnel Board of Review (Aug. 9, 1978), Franklin Co., No. 77CV-10-4300, unreported. An appointing authority may orally reassign an employee to different duties consistent with his civil service classification without complying with the written order requirements of R.C. 124.34; state personnel board of review has no jurisdiction over an oral alleged reduction.

Lowry v. Ohio Civil Rights Commission (July 17, 1991), PBR 91-RED-02-0110; aff'd (Sept. 17, 1991), Full Board. Denial of retroactively-requested leave or sick time does not constitute a reduction in pay. View SPBR Order

Drescher v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Human Services (Aug. 15, 1990), PBR 89-RED-11-0644. Where failure to complete case records and dictation has not been shown to have contributed, either directly or indirectly, to the abuse of a child within a social services caseworker's supervisory group or to that child being placed at risk, discipline imposed on the caseworker should reflect only her failure to complete her records on a timely basis, and should not be premised on the abuse of the child. View SPBR Order

Drescher v. Cuyahoga County Dept. of Human Services (Aug. 15, 1990), PBR 89-RED-11-0644. An appointing authority's decision of the penalty to be imposed upon appellant that was made prior to a pre-disciplinary hearing does not merit the disaffirmance of a reduction action even though it denies appellant sufficient due process under Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education (1983), 721 F.2d 550; appellant's property interest, as a public employee, is in continued employment rather than in employment in a particular position. View SPBR Order

Glunt v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation (Nov. 12, 1987), PBR 87-RED-08-0645. Where an interim appointment continues for four months after the effective end of the period of disability for which the interim appointment was made and the appointing authority acts with reasonable diligence to select an applicant after the vacant position is posted, the incumbent employee is not entitled to the position by default and is not reduced in position when another applicant is selected to fill the vacancy. View SPBR Order

Thompson v. Harrison County Clerk of Courts (Apr. 8, 1987), PBR 87-RED-02-0105. An appointing authority may not impose a reduction in pay upon classified employees based on the county commissioner's failure to sufficiently fund the personnel budgets for county offices; O.A.C. 123:1-31-01 provides that reduction shall be made only for disciplinary reasons. View SPBR Order

Rogers v. Ohio Dept. of Natural Resources (Jan. 22, 1987), PBR 86-MIS-10-1334. Although the department of natural resources has the discretion to establish the starting and ending dates of the park season, it may not employ full-time permanent seasonal employees during one portion of the season and then employ intermittent workers to perform the work for the remainder of the season; such a practice constitutes a reduction for other than disciplinary purposes and is impermissible pursuant to R.C. 124.34. View SPBR Order

Staut v. Ohio Dept. of Health (Aug. 1, 1986), PBR 86-RED-04-0513. The "rule of three" provides that employees who supervise less than three subordinate employees are not "true supervisors" and should be included in the bargaining unit; the "rule of three" may not, standing alone, permit non-disciplinary reductions in position which would cause a classified employee to be assigned to a classification with a lower pay range, should an audit occur. View SPBR Order

Staut v. Ohio Dept. of Health (Aug. 1, 1986), PBR 86-RED-04-0513. The "rule of three" is an arbitrary choice made by the office of collective bargaining and found nowhere in either statute or rule; the application of the rule does not constitute an appropriate benchmark for the taking away of certain duties of a classified employee. View SPBR Order

McGlaughlin v. Oakwood Forensic Center (July 23, 1986), PBR 86-RED-02-0171. Where a reorganization affects an employee's duties but does not result in a dimunition of duties or responsibilities to the extent that an audit of the position would result in a reclassification downward, the employee has not suffered a reduction in position sufficient to confer jurisdiction to hear an appeal upon the state personnel board of review. View SPBR Order

Black v. Oakwood Forensic Center (July 7, 1986), PBR 86-RED-02-0121. The termination of hazard pay by the application of a fifty percent rule is contrary to statutory intent and constitutes an improper reduction; hazard pay is a pay supplement granted when certain conditions exist, for those hours worked or a fraction thereof while the employee is subject to an unusual hazard condition. View SPBR Order

    A. Fines/Reduction of Leave Balances

Harden v. Ohio Attorney General (2004), 101 Ohio St.3d 137, 2004-Ohio-382. R.C. 124.34 authorized public employers to discipline employees by deducting vacation time that accrues subsequent to the disciplinary action; a deduction of vacation leave credit constitutes a reduction in pay, and is one of the means of disciplining an employee authorized by R.C. 124.34. View Supreme Court Decision | View SPBR Order