Cuyahoga Falls Edn. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Falls 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

**** SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITING ****

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 Deborah J. Barrett, 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.

Cuyahoga Falls Education Association et al., Appellants, v.
Cuyahoga Falls City School District Board of Education,
Appellee.
[Cite as Cuyahoga Falls Edn. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Falls City
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), Ohio St.3d .]
Schools -- Teachers -- Labor relations -- School board suspends
teacher's continuing contract in contravention of trial
court's injunction -- Teacher wrongfully excluded from his
employment -- Mandamus appropriate remedy to recover
compensation due for period wrongful exclusion from
employment.
(No. 93-1579 -- Submitted September 20, 1994 -- Decided
December 14, 1994.)
Appeal from the Court of Appeals for Summit County, No.
15833.
This case involves two suits brought by appellant Cuyahoga
Falls Education Association ("the association") against
appellee, Cuyahoga Falls City School District Board of
Education ("the board"). The first ("CFEA I") sought an
injunction against the board. The second ("CFEA II") sought a
writ of mandamus.
In 1985, the association and the board entered into a
collective bargaining agreement. The agreement specified those
circumstances when the board may reduce the number of teachers
working in the school district for reasons unrelated to the
teachers' work performance.
The collective bargaining agreement treated the
reduction-in-force of teachers with limited contracts
differently than those teachers with continuing contracts. The
agreement provided:
"Continuing contract teachers shall be reduced only after
all limited contract teachers of the same certification and
area of assignment. Such reduction in the continuing contract
staff shall be in accordance to ORC 3319.17."1
On April 27, 1988, the board notified twenty-two teachers

with limited contracts that it was not renewing their contracts
due to a reduction-in-force caused by a decrease in
enrollment. On the same day, the board notified appellant,
Stanley Sipka, that his continuing contract would be suspended
due to a reduction-in-force caused by a decrease in
enrollment. Sipka was laid off from July 1988 until August
1992.
The association filed an action in the Court of Common
Pleas of Summit County seeking to enjoin the board from
discharging the twenty-two limited contract teachers and
Sipka. The trial court held that the board's actions were an
unreasonable reduction-in-force and thus enjoined the board
from not renewing the twenty-two contracts. The trial court
then amended its order stating that the injunction was to apply
to all twenty-three teachers. The board appealed the trial
court's order to the Court of Appeals for Summit County. In
its opinion, the court of appeals discussed the status of only
the twenty-two teachers with limited contracts. Sipka was
never discussed. After concluding that the trial court
misinterpreted the portion of the collective bargaining
agreement addressing the reduction-in-force of limited contract
teachers, the court of appeals reversed the trial court.
This court granted the association's motion to certify the
record. We then affirmed the court of appeals' reversal of the
trial court. Cuyahoga Falls Edn. Assn. v. Cuyahoga Falls City
School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1991), 61 Ohio St.3d 193, 574 N.E.2d
442. Our opinion centered on the status of the twenty-two
teachers with limited contracts. Sipka's continuing contract
was never discussed in the opinion.
When counsel for the association informed this court of
our failure to address Sipka's contract in a motion for
rehearing, reconsideration and/or clarification, we denied the
motion (case No. 90-113).
CFEA II began when Sipka and the association filed a
complaint in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Summit
County. The complaint claimed that due to the outcome of CFEA
I, Sipka was entitled to reinstatement and "a monetary award
that will compensate him for compensation and benefits he has
lost as a result of the unlawful suspension of his continuing
contract of employment." The court of appeals denied the writ.
This matter is before this court as an appeal as of right.

Green, Haines, Sgambati, Murphy & Macala Co., L.P.A.,
Ronald G. Macala and Anne Piero Silagy, for appellants.
Whalen & Compton Co., L.P.A., G. Frederick Compton, Jr.,
R. Brent Minney and Elizabeth Grooms Taylor, for appellee.

Pfeifer, J. Because the board failed to make Sipka a
party in its appeal in CFEA I, we conclude that the trial
court's injunction enjoining the board from suspending Sipka's
continuing contract remained intact and enforceable in
mandamus. We, thus, reverse the court of appeals' judgment in
this case.
I
The effect of a reversal must be restricted to the parties
who, by notice or other process, have been made parties to the
appeal. 96 Am. St. Rep. 127 (1903). Having not received

notice or other process, Sipka did not become a party to the
appeal in CFEA I. In its appellate brief in CFEA I, the board
devoted its assignments of error exclusively to matters
concerning the reduction-in-force of limited contract teachers
and did not contest the trial court's ruling regarding Sipka's
continuing contract.
The court of appeals opinion in CFEA I further illustrates
that Sipka was not a party to the appeal. The appellate
court's opinion discussed only the portion of the trial court's
holding that addressed the twenty-two teachers with limited
contracts. The court of appeals analyzed only that portion of
the collective bargaining agreement devoted to the
reduction-in-force of teachers with limited contracts. The
court of appeals never discussed Sipka or the portions of the
agreement referring to the reduction-in-force of teachers who
have continuing contracts.
When this court reviewed the court of appeals' opinion in
CFEA I, we limited the scope of our analysis to the parties of
the appeal. Our opinion addressed the twenty-two teachers
holding limited contracts and did not address Sipka's
continuing contract.
Thus, after examining the record, we conclude that Sipka
was never made a party to the appellate proceedings in CFEA I.
After we issued our opinion affirming the court of appeals in
CFEA I, the board remained enjoined from suspending Sipka's
continuing contract. The trial court's holding that the
board's reduction-in-force of Sipka violated R.C. 3319.17 was
never reversed by the court of appeals. When the association
appealed the court of appeals' opinion to this court, the
portion of the trial court's holding which addressed Sipka was
not before us. When the court of appeals denied appellants'
request for a writ of mandamus in CFEA II, the court of appeals
improperly concluded that our opinion in CFEA I addressed
Sipka's contract.
II
Having held that the trial court's injunction affecting
Sipka's contract remains in effect, we must decide whether
mandamus is the appropriate remedy for Sipka. In contravention
of the trial court's injunction, the board laid off Sipka from
July 1988 to August 1992. Sipka claims that during this lay
off period he lost: $58,711.48 in net wages, 1.9 years of
service credit in the State Teacher's Retirement System, and
the interest that the retirement system requires when late
contributions are made to it.2
We hold that mandamus is the appropriate remedy for
Sipka. "An action in mandamus is maintainable by a reinstated
public employee to recover compensation due him for the period
of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from his
employment, provided the amount recoverable is established with
certainty." State ex rel. Martin, v, Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio
St.2d 261, 12 O.O. 3d 268, 389 N.E.2d 1123, paragraph one of
syllabus. When the board suspended Sipka's continuing contract
in contravention of the trial court's injunction, the board
wrongfully excluded Sipka from his employment. We, thus,
remand this cause to the court of appeals to determine with
certainty the extent of Sipka's damages and to issue a writ of
mandamus compelling the board to compensate Sipka.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the
cause is remanded.
Judgment reversed
and cause remanded.
Moyer, C.J., A.W. Sweeney, Douglas, Wright, Resnick and
F.E. Sweeney, JJ., concur.
FOOTNOTES:
1 Former R.C. 3319.17 provided:
"When by reason of decreased enrollment of pupils, return
to duty of regular teachers after leaves of absence, or by
reason of suspension of schools or territorial changes
affecting the district, a board of education decides that it
will be necessary to reduce the number of teachers, it may make
a reasonable reduction. In making such reduction, the board
shall proceed to suspend contracts in accordance with the
recommendation of the superintendent of schools who shall,
within each teaching field affected, give preference to
teachers on continuing contracts and to teachers who have
greater seniority. Teachers, whose continuing contracts are
suspended, shall have the right of restoration to continuing
service status in the order of seniority of service in the
district if and when teaching positions become vacant or are
created for which any of such teachers are or become qualified."
2 The complaint in mandamus requested that the board be
ordered to reinstate Sipka. However, because Sipka was recalled
to a different teaching position in 1992, such an order became
unnecessary.