Background
Robert Denham worked as a custodian for Columbus City Schools until his 2008 termination. The district rehired him in 2022, but released him from employment in August 2023 after determining that his aggravated-robbery conviction made him ineligible for continued school-district employment under R.C. 3319.391. Aggravated robbery is an “absolute bar offense” under Ohio’s administrative code.
Denham sought declaratory relief, alleging that the district had known of his conviction when it previously employed and terminated him. He argued that Adm.Code 3301-20-03(C), which says its mandatory-release provision does not apply to convictions learned of before the rule’s effective date, barred the district from terminating him. The trial court dismissed the complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The Tenth District affirmed. It held that the administrative rule’s exception from mandatory release does not prohibit a school district from releasing an employee whose conviction was known before the rule took effect. Rather, the exception removes the rule’s mandatory requirement and leaves the district discretion concerning release or retention.
The court further held that the rule did not require Columbus City Schools to retain an ineligible employee who had been mistakenly rehired. Absent satisfaction of State Board rehabilitation standards, R.C. 3319.391(D) required Denham’s release from employment because of his disqualifying conviction. The court also rejected his retroactivity argument, relying on Ohio Supreme Court precedent that the statute operates prospectively and does not impair a vested right to continued employment.
Key Takeaways
- An exception to a mandatory employment-release rule does not necessarily create a right to continued employment.
- A school district may correct the mistaken rehiring of an employee barred by statute from school employment.
- R.C. 3319.391’s employment restrictions are prospective and do not, without more, impair a vested right to continued employment.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that prior district knowledge of an absolute-bar conviction does not compel retention of a subsequently rehired employee. For Ohio school districts, the ruling supports corrective action when a disqualifying conviction is discovered or an ineligible person is mistakenly rehired.