Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

54 Ohio St. 2d 282

Jackson v. Chapman

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided May 24, 1978

Ohio Supreme Court · decided 1978-05-24

Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently April 1984

2 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The word party is defined by statute. A party is ‘[t]he person whose interests are the subject of an adjudication by an agency.’ R.C. 119.01(G). “The Administrative Procedure Act defines person as ‘a person, firm, corporation, association, or partnership.’ R.C. 119.01(F). “To be a party one must first be a person. The Administrative Procedure Act’s definition of the word person does not include the state. Nor does it include any state agency. Nor does it include the director of any agency. Nor is the state on the relation of any department, director or agency a person. “If the General Assembly had intended to give the director of a state department or the state on relation of the director a right of appeal, it could have done so. It did not. In fact, the General Assembly gave both the employee and the director a right of appeal in those instances where it so intended and did not give the right of appeal where it so intended. In R.C. 124.34, the pertinent language reads as follows: “ ‘In cases of removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons, either the appointing authority or the officer or employee may appeal from the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review * * * to the Court of Common Pleas of the county in which the employee resides in accordance with the procedure provided by Section 119.12 of the Revised Code.’ ””

quoted by 1 later decision, including 20 Ohio App. 3d 150 - Davis v. State Personnel Board of Review

Relies on Jackson v. Coffey

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-05-24

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1Appellees admit they were circulating nominating petitions for, were elected to, and served as members of, a county (political party) central committee while employed as- classified state civil servants.3 This court held, in Jackson v. Coffey (1977), 52 Ohio St. 2d 43, 44, that “membership in a county central committee of a political party constitutes holding of public office …

¶2The court went on to hold that “it is clear that such committee membership, per se, falls within the political activities proscribed for classified employees in R. C. 124.57.” Therefore, under this court’s holding in Jackson v. Coffey, supra,the actions of appellees constituted “political activities proscribed for classified employees” for which they were subject to removal.

¶3The Court of Appeals, nevertheless, held that the Court of Common Pleas was without jurisdiction to entertain the director’s appeal and dismissed his notice of appeal, citing as authority State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson, supra.That case, however, dealt with an order of the Director of Transportation laying off an employee in the classified state service, and holds specifically that “the director of a state department does not have a right of appeal to the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County from an order of the State Personnel Board of Beview disaffirming the director’s *284layoff order of an employee for alleged lack of work.” (Emphasis added.)

¶4In the instant case, appellees were “removed” from their positions in the classified state service by the director. R. C. 124.34 provides that “in cases of removal … either the appointing authority or the officer or employee may appeal from the decision of the state personnel board of review … to the court of common pleas of the county in which the employee resides in accordance with the procedure provided by section 119.12 of the Revised Code.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the Director of Transportation is given the right to appeal from an adverse decision of the State Personnel Board of Review.

¶5Accordingly, on authority of State, ex rel. Osborn, v. Jackson, supra,and Jackson v. Coffey, supra,the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and final judgment is entered for appellant, Director of Transportation.

¶6Judgment reversed.

O.’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, W. Brown, P. Brown and Sweeney, JJ., concur.

¶7Stipulations before State Personnel Board of Review.

/54/ohiost2d/282 · .json · Public domain