Greater Boston Television Corp. v. F.C.C. (1971), 444 F.2d 841, cert. denied 403 U.S. 923. An agency changing its course must supply a reasoned analysis indicating that prior policies and standards are being deliberately changed, not casually ignored.

Collyer v. Darling, et al., (6th Cir.) 1996 Fed App. 0317P. Members of the State Personnel Board of Review are absolutely immune from suit for money damages in their individual capacities because they perform an adjudicatory function within an administrative agency.

Scott v. Reinier (1978), 60 Ohio App.2d 289; aff'd Scott v. Reinier (1979), 58 Ohio St.2d 67. The state personnel board of review may change a removal order to one of suspension only if it considers all of the evidence used by the appointing authority when such authority made its disposition.

DiCillo & Sons, Inc. v. Chester Zoning Board of Appeals (1952), 158 Ohio St. 302. Findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered by an administrative agency are part of its proceedings and should be entered in its records as an official action.

Estate of Kirby v. Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas (1992), 78 Ohio App.3d. 397; cert denied 64 Ohio St.3d 1416. R.C. 119.092[119.02][F] specifically bars applications for attorney's fees when the actions involve hearings by the state personnel board of review under R.C. 124.03 and employees prevailing in appeals pursuant to R.C. 124.03 are not entitled to attorney's fees; however, because R.C. 119.02(F) does not address hearings under R.C. 124.34, the legislature must have intended that employees prevailing in appeals under R.C. 124.34 are entitled to such an award. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Slone v. Ohio Bd. of Embalmers & Funeral Directors (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 628. Mailing to licensee's attorney copy of order revoking license to practice profession does not satisfy requirement of notice to affected party.

State, ex rel. Cole v. Laumann (1990), 69 Ohio App.3d 464. An agency has the duty to journalize its rulings by reducing them to writing; the written entry of a decision of an administrative board should be the written minutes of its meeting at which the decision was rendered.

Beeler v. Franklin County Sheriff (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 748. When evidence before court reviewing administrative decision consists of conflicting testimony of approximately equal weight, court should defer to determination of administrative body which, as fact finder, had opportunity to observe demeanor of witnesses and weigh their credibility; but when common pleas court in its appraisal of evidence on appeal from administrative decision determines that there exists legally sufficient reasons for discrediting certain evidence relied upon by administrative body and necessary to its determination, court may reverse, vacate, or modify administrative order.

Steinbacher v. Louis (1987), 36 Ohio App.3d 68. The state personnel board of review has the authority to independently review the evidence and to modify disciplinary decisions of state agencies.

Chapman v. Ohio State Dental Board (1986), 33 Ohio App.3d 324. R.C. 119.09 does not create a mandatory duty on behalf of an administrative board to read the transcript of testimony and evidence of the proceedings held before a hearing examiner.

Adkins v. State Personnel Board of Review (1986), 32 Ohio App.3d 32. The state personnel board of review has no power to assign an appeal before it, over which it lacks jurisdiction, to the proper civil service commission; denial of a civil service commission of jurisdiction over an employee's appeal is a final appealable order which may be appealed to the court of common pleas. View Court of Appeals Decision

Weisenberger v. Ferguson (1985), 30 Ohio App.3d 160. The power of the state personnel board of review to hear job audit appeals pursuant to R.C. 124.03(A) expressly includes the power to review the effective date of any reclassification; the board has the authority to reclassify an employee to the date of his request for a job audit, or beyond, but only where the facts demonstrate a clear, reasonable right to retroactivity. View Court of Appeals Decision | View SPBR Order

Maiden v. Fayette County Board of MR/DD (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 196. The state personnel board of review, upon a proper review of all the factors affecting the appointing authority's removal order, has the authority to affirm the adjudication, but may modify the punishment when mitigating factors call for a less severe penalty.

Lies v. Veterinary Medical Board (1981), 2 Ohio App.3d 204. The institutional decision made by an administrative board may properly be based on written findings of fact prepared by a hearing examiner as long as the findings of fact constitute a basis for making informed, deliberate and independent conclusions about the issues, and the board members need not read the entire transcript of testimony, in the absence of any affirmative demonstration that the findings of fact are in any way defective.

Western Reserve Psychiatric Hospital v. Knight (1980), 69 Ohio App.2d 108. The state personnel board of review has explicit statutory authority to modify disciplinary decisions of state agencies.

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

Cuyahoga County Dept. of Human Services v. Hutchinson (July 15, 1993), Cuyahoga App. No. 62986, unreported, 1993 WL 266938. O.A.C. 124-11-03(B) does not violate the right of an appointing authority to equal protection; the section survives an application of the rational basis test.

Turner v. Madison Correctional Institution (Aug. 19, 1992), Clark App. No. 2863, unreported, 1992 WL 206647. Credibility of a witness is for the state personnel board of review to determine in the first instance.

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.

Ohio Dept. of Human Services v. Shipka (Dec. 17, 1991), Franklin App. No. 91AP-789, unreported, 1991 WL 274916. The state personnel board of review's ability to consider mitigating factors, such as length of service and prior disciplinary background, is established under R.C. 124.03 and R.C. 124.34. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Henize v. Giles (Jan. 14, 1985), Highland App. No. 532, unreported. Appearance and practice before the unemployment compensation board of review or its referee wherein a claimant's right to benefits is adjudicated constitutes the practice of law; notwithstanding the rule-making authority granted to the board of review in R.C. 4141.06 and rules promulgated under such authority, an administrative agency cannot authorize the practice of law and, indeed, the general assembly is likewise without such authority. R.C. 4141.06. But see R.C. 119.13 for applicability to the state personnel board of review. View Court of Appeals Decision

City of Middletown v. Nichols (Mar. 17, 1983), Franklin App. No. 82AP-371, unreported. Where the rulemaking actions of a state agency are found to be unlawful and unreasonable, a reviewing agency has a statutory duty to vacate the entire action appealed from and not merely a portion thereof. View Court of Appeals Decision

City of Middletown v. Nichols (Mar. 17, 1983), Franklin App. No. 82AP-371, unreported. An administrative agency may not add to the procedures required of state agencies for rulemaking, which are contained in R.C. 119.03. View Court of Appeals Decision

Central Ohio Psychiatric Hospital v. Kelso (Dec. 9, 1982), Franklin App. No. 82AP-787, unreported, 1982 WL 4559. The state personnel board of review has the power to modify the discipline imposed by an appointing authority. View Court of Appeals Decision

Tolber v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Mar. 28, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF08-6040, unreported. Where appellant was following an accepted agency practice, discipline may be modified from removal to suspension for falsification of information appearing on employee's time cards. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Franklin County Dept. of Human Services v. Foster, et al. (Mar. 25, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF12-9168, unreported. Where an agency's "working definition" of a term is not properly made a part of the pertinent classification specification, the board may make its own determination of the term's meaning and apply such definition in deciding whether an appellant performs job duties commensurate with the classification specification. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Fowler v. Fairfield County District Board of Health (Jan. 25, 1996), Franklin Co., No. 95CVF11-911, unreported. Although the state personnel board of review can set deposit schedules for transcripts, the court of common pleas may examine particular cases for their just application and, when appropriate, limit the amount of the deposit. View Common Pleas Decision

DePietro v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (Jan. 11, 1996), Franklin Co., Nos. 95CVF03-2203, 2205 and 2206, unreported. The state personnel board of review may dismiss an appeal for failure to respond to a procedural order issued by the board, pursuant to O.A.C. 124-11-13. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order (94-WHB-09-0338) | View SPBR Order (94-WHB-09-0339) | View SPBR Order (94-WHB-10-0373)

Butler County Care Facility v. Chalfant (Dec. 20, 1995), Butler Co., No. CV95-05-0806, unreported. While the state personnel board of review has the ultimate authority to rule on cases before it, including the right to reject or modify the conclusions and recommendations of its hearing examiners, this cannot be done casually or without good reason. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Jakubic v. Ohio University, et al. (Nov. 27, 1995), Belmont Co., No. 94-CV-142, unreported. Where appellee failed to prove any of the specific allegations contained in the R.C. 124.34 order removing appellant, the state personnel board of review had the authority to modify appellant's discipline to a thirty-day suspension for neglect of duty demonstrated by appellant's lack of discretion in the performance of his job duties. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Lake County Department of Human Services v. MacKnight (Jan. 12, 1995), Franklin Co., No. 94CVF02-820, unreported. Where appellant bumps into a position covered under a collective bargaining agreement, the issue of salary determination is exclusively in the province of the collective bargaining process and the state personnel board of review has no authority to assign a pay rate. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Morrison v. Mansfield Correctional Institution (Aug. 22, 1994), Richland Co., No. 94-223D, unreported. R.C. 124.34 grants the state personnel board of review no authority to enforce its Orders. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Adamaszek v. Ohio Dept. of Administrative Services (Jan. 31, 1994), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF-08-6104, unreported. The state personnel board of review may, pursuant to O.A.C. 124-9-05(C), dismiss an appeal for failure to timely respond to a procedural order of the board. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Taylor, et al. v. Franklin County Sheriff (June 9, 1993), Franklin Co., No. 93CVF02-1295, unreported. Modification of discipline imposed upon appellant which is based upon a charge which is neither recognized in the statutes nor supported by the evidence (i.e., poor judgment) is not an option for either the administrative law judge or the board. View Common Pleas Decision

Edison v. Franklin County Children Services Board (July 20, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF-07-5921, unreported. The state personnel board of review may dismiss an appeal for failure to comply with a court-ordered deadline and a second procedural deadline. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Yoders v. Ohio State University (Oct. 11, 1991), PBR 90-REC-08-0875; aff'd (Nov. 6, 1991), Full Board; dismissed (June 9, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91-CVF-11-9587. R.C. 124.14 empowers the state personnel board of review to determine what classification most closely matches an appellant's job duties whether that classification results in an increase, decrease or no change in the appellant's classification level and pay range. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Crowley v. Board of Tax Appeals (Oct. 23, 1991), PBR 91-MIS-08-0541; aff'd (Nov. 25, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (Feb. 3, 1992), Franklin Co., No. 91CVF12-9937, unreported. The state personnel board of review has no authority to issue a declaratory judgment stating that an employee is in the classified service rather than the unclassified service; whether or not an appointing authority's designation of a position is correct is an issue that can only be determined when the board's jurisdiction has been invoked in regard to an adverse personnel action suffered by an employee. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Finch v. Clermont County Board of Commissioners (Oct. 9, 1991), Clermont Co., No. 91CV-0652, unreported. R.C. 124.34 requires the filing of a notice of removal with the state personnel board of review and R.C. 124.03(F) authorizes the board to make reasonable rules relating to the procedures of the board, including regulatory rules governing the contents of orders of removal; therefore, O.A.C. 124-03-01 is a lawful exercise of the rule-making authority of the board and a summary disaffirmance based upon that rule is appropriate as a matter of law. View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order

Pilmore v. Williams County Clerk of Courts (May 13, 1991), PBR 91-REM-01-0008; aff'd (June 11, 1991), Full Board; aff'd (NO DATE), Williams Co., No. 91CI00-0076, unreported. The constitutionality of sections of the Ohio Revised Code is not an issue which the state personnel board of review is empowered to resolve; the board is charged with the duty of enforcing Ohio laws and regulations and is not empowered to invalidate Ohio statutes. View SPBR Order

May v. Fairfield County Children Services (May 21, 1992), PBR 92-INV-04-0175; aff'd (July 2, 1992), Full Board. Because R.C. 4112.02(A) specifically denominates the civil rights commission as the appropriate body to investigate allegations of discrimination based on religious beliefs, the commission is a more proper forum for an investigation based on this ground than is the state personnel board of review. View SPBR Order

1990 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 014. A member of the state personnel board of review is prohibited from holding any other office of trust or profit under the government of the United States, the state or any political subdivision thereof, and from holding any other public office or public position of profit; such a member may, however, hold a post in the private sector for which compensation is paid, provided that the duties of the post do not conflict or interfere with the individual's performance of his duties as a member of the board. View Attorney General Opinion

    A. Duty to Provide Timely Hearing

Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education (1983) 721 F.2d 550. Thirty-day statutory period in which Ohio law required posttermination hearings to be held for public employees did not give rise to a procedural entitlement; however, due process requires that a hearing be held not just in a meaningful manner, but also at a meaningful time.

Loudermill v. Cleveland Board of Education (1983) 721 F.2d 550. Delay in a posttermination hearing must be excessive or unreasonable before federal due process is denied; delays of three months and eight months did not deprive employees of due process, although hearings were not held within thirty-day statutory period provided for by Ohio law.

State, ex rel. Webb v. Bryan City School District Board of Education (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 27. The thirty-day language contained in R.C. 124.34 is directory and not mandatory.

In re Appeal of Gardner (1987), 40 Ohio App.3d 99. The provision of R.C. 124.34 requiring a hearing within thirty days of an employee's timely appeal of an order of reduction, suspension or removal is mandatory, not merely directory; however, the failure of the state personnel board of review to hold a hearing within such time, although error, does not deprive the board of jurisdiction to proceed to hold the hearing.

In re Removal of Bronkar (1977), 53 Ohio Misc. 13. The failure of the state personnel board of review to hear or appoint a trial board to hear an appeal of removal within thirty days after filing is not automatic grounds for reinstatement under R.C. 124.34.

State, ex rel. Freeman v. State Personnel Board of Review (Aug. 11, 1987), Franklin App. No. 86AP-577, unreported, 1987 WL 15671. Where the state personnel board of review failed to conduct hearings in an appeal until after appellant filed a complaint seeking to compel the board to do so, and after an informal hearing by the court, the appellant is entitled to have his court costs assessed against the board. View Court of Appeals Decision

Gatts v. Massillon Psychiatric Center, et al. (June 18, 1993), Stark Co., No. CV92-1802, unreported; aff'd (Jan. 1994), Stark App. No. 93AP-9422, unreported, 1994 WL 564226. The requirement that the state personnel board of review hear an appeal filed with the board within thirty days from and after its filing is discretionary, not mandatory. View Court of Appeals Decision | View Common Pleas Decision | View SPBR Order