The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled on the Stewart v. Lockland case (Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-3839), which is a positive decision for school districts. In its decision, the court upheld the lower court’s decision that Ohio’s Open Meetings Act did not require the district to hold a public pretermintaion hearing for Adam Stewart. 

The Ohio Department of Education notified the school district that district employees falsely reported student-attendance data in order to improve their state report card for the 2010-2011 school year. At that time, Stewart served as a data coordinator for the district. After the district’s internal investigation, Stewart was implicated as an individual who altered the data.

During its August 23, 2012 board meeting, the board provided Stewart with a due process hearing that was held in open session. Once the hearing was complete, the board went into executive session, over the objection of Stewart’s attorneys. After the holding its deliberations in executive session, the board went back into open session. Subsequently, the board passed a resolution in open session to terminate Stewart’s employment contract pursuant to RC 3319.081.

Stewart filed an action in the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas alleging that the board violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act under RC 121.22. However, the magistrate for the trial court granted the board’s motion for summary judgment. Stewart appealed to the First District Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s decision. The court of appeals held that “Loudermill sought to provide persons who possessed a property interest in continued employment with the basic due-process protections of notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to termination of employment. However, the Loudermill court did not accord those persons the right to require that the entire pretermination hearing be held in the public.” As a result, Stewart could not rely on his entitlement to a Loudermill pretermination hearing to prevent the board from entering into executive session.

Stewart then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court and argued that he was entitled to a public hearing. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals. It found that RC 3319.081 does not entitle Stewart to have his “entire pretermination hearing held in public.” The court determined that as long as the school district followed the requirements of due process, it was not required to have an elaborate hearing or have it held in public. In this case, as noted by the court, Stewart did receive due process, and he had notice of the board’s special meeting regarding his employment. In addition, Stewart had an opportunity to be heard at the meeting. As a result, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that Stewart was not entitled to a public hearing.

 The OSBA Legal Assistance Fund (LAF) provided support to Lockland School District Board of Education by providing an amicus curiae brief written by the law firm of Isaac, Wiles, Burkholder & Teetor LLC. If you have any questions please contact OSBA’s legal division.

Posted by Candice Christon on 9/25/2015