State ex rel. Schneider v. N. Olmsted City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice
Thomas J. Moyer.
Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Attention: Walter S.
Kobalka, Reporter, or Justine Michael, Administrative
Assistant. Tel.: (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.
NOTE: Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the
full texts of the opinions after they have been released
electronically to the public. The reader is therefore advised
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.

The State ex rel. Schneider, Appellant, v. Board of
Education of North Olmsted City School District, Appellee.
[Cite as State ex rel. Schneider v. N. Olmsted City School
Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1992), Ohio St.3d .]
Mandamus seeking back pay, benefits and interest for wrongful
discharge -- Res judicata applies when back pay issue
decided in previous mandamus case granting reinstatement.
(No. 91-919 -- Submitted October 13, 1992 -- Decided
December 14, 1992.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, No.
89CA004683.
William J. Schneider, appellant, an employee of the Board
of Education of the North Olmsted City School District,
appellee, was terminated by the board in 1981. His appeal
ultimately resulted in a disaffirmance of the termination. See
N. Olmsted Bd. of Edn. v. N. Olmsted Civ. Serv. Comm. (1983),
13 Ohio App.3d 201, 13 OBR 249, 468 N.E.2d 749. However, he
was not reinstated by the board.
In 1984, Schneider filed a mandamus action against the
board in the Ninth District Court of Appeals, but that court
transferred the case to the Eighth Appellate District. The
Eighth Appellate District ruled it lacked jurisdiction over the
action and dismissed it.
Schneider thereafter filed a motion to reinstate his
mandamus complaint in the Ninth District, and the court granted
the motion. He sought reinstatement and back pay.
On January 28, 1987, the Ninth District Court granted a
writ of mandamus, ordering the board to reinstate Schneider.
As to back pay, it stated:
"Schneider has failed to submit evidence sufficient to
establish his claim to back pay and benefits with certainty.
Such a dearth of evidence not only makes it impossible for this
court to calculate the amount of the sums allegedly owed, but
whether they are owing at all. Consequently, this court
declines to issue a writ of mandamus requiring the recovery of
compensation. However, a writ shall issue ordering the
respondents to reinstate Schneider to his prior position."
The board appealed this decision, alleging that the Eighth

District's dismissal decision was res judicata to the action
and barred the Ninth District decision. However, in State ex
rel. Schneider v. N. Olmsted Bd. of Edn. (1988), 39 Ohio St.3d
281, 530 N.E.2d 206, we rejected this argument and affirmed the
Ninth District's judgment. Schneider did not appeal the Ninth
District's ruling on back pay.
The board reinstated Schneider but has not paid him back
pay. Schneider filed this complaint for a writ of mandamus in
the Court of Appeals for Lorain County, seeking net back pay,
benefits, and interest, totaling at least $228,399.54. The
court of appeals dismissed the case because the back pay
question had been adjudicated in the January 28, 1987 decision
and was res judicata.
This matter is before this court upon an appeal as of
right.

Francis X. Cook Co., L.P.A., and Francis X. Cook, for
appellant.
Squires, Sanders & Dempsey, Timothy J. Sheeran, Jeffrey J.
Wedel and David K. Smith, for appellee.

Per Curiam. Schneider argues that he could not have
established back pay with certainty in the previous mandamus
action because he had not yet been reinstated. The board
responds that the court of appeals could and did decide on back
pay in the previous mandamus case and that, consequently, res
judicata precludes Schneider from relitigating this issue here.
We have permitted a wrongfully excluded employee to obtain
back pay in a mandamus action after he has been reinstated,
Monaghan v. Richley (1972), 32 Ohio St.2d 190, 61 O.O.2d 425,
291 N.E.2d 462, State ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins (1984), 9 Ohio
St.3d 117, 9 OBR 342, 459 N.E.2d 520, and (1981), 65 Ohio St.2d
63, 19 O.O.3d 259, 418 N.E.2d 398; we have also decided cases
combining the two remedies in one mandamus action, State ex
rel. Rose v. James (1991), 57 Ohio St.3d 14, 565 N.E.2d 547,
and State ex rel. Fenton v. Dept. of Human Serv. (1992), 63
Ohio St.3d 481, 589 N.E.2d 11. In the former cases,
reinstatement was accomplished via appeal, and back pay could
not be addressed in the appellate setting. Consequently, the
court allowed mandamus. However, in the latter cases,
reinstatement and back pay were both achieved through
mandamus. Thus, the court of appeals could entertain both
questions in one mandamus action.
Here, Schneider asked the court of appeals to decide the
back pay question in the previous mandamus action, and the
court complied. However, it decided the issue against
Schneider, because he had not presented sufficient evidence to
prove his claim. Schneider did not appeal this finding and,
thus, faces defeat in this case for two reasons.
First, he had an adequate remedy at law--appealing the
back pay decision. In State ex rel. Cartmell v. Dorrian
(1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 177, 178, 11 OBR 491, 492, 464 N.E.2d
556, 558, we stated:
"The fact that appellant failed to timely pursue his right
of appeal does not make that remedy inadequate. If that were
the case, this criterion for a writ of mandamus would be met
whenever the opportunity to pursue another adequate remedy

expired. Would-be appellants could thwart the appellate
process simply by ignoring it."
Second, res judicata bars recovery. In State ex rel.
Witsamen v. Maumee Valley Guidance Ctr., Inc. (1983), 6 Ohio
St.3d 26, 6 OBR 22, 450 N.E.2d 1180, we held that failure to
pursue an appeal in the underlying case prevents a collateral
attack on the judgment in mandamus under res judicata.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment to dismiss the
complaint.
Judgment affirmed.
Moyer, C.J., Sweeney, Holmes, Wright, H. Brown and
Resnick, JJ., concur.
Douglas, J., dissents.