Case Title: State ex rel. Cohn v. Shaker Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn.

Citation: 1997-Ohio-190

Docket Number: 19961787

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1997-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
The State ex rel. Cohn et al., Appellees, v. Shaker Heights City School District 
Board of Education, Appellant. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Cohn v. Shaker Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1997),   
Ohio St.3d     .] 
Mandamus compelling board of education to pay relators the difference between 
the amounts they were paid as tutors and the amounts they were entitled to 
receive under the teachers’ salary schedules for school years 1989-1990 
through 1994-1995 and to issue relators continuing contracts -- Writ 
granted, when. 
 
(No. 96-1787 -- Submitted April 15, 1997 -- Decided June 4, 1997.) 
 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 69539. 
 
Appellant, Shaker Heights City School District Board of Education, 
employs appellees, Marlene Cohn and Cindy Brodsky, as tutors.  While employed 
as tutors, they held teaching certificates and served as teachers.   
 
Through a collective bargaining agreement effective from August 1981 to 
December 1985, the board recognized the Shaker Heights Teachers’ Association 
as the exclusive representative of “classroom teachers.”  The parties did not intend 
that the bargaining unit include tutors. Subsequent collective bargaining 
 
2
agreements between the board and the association expressly excluded tutors from 
the bargaining unit.   
 
For school years 1989-1990 through 1994-1995, the board paid tutors, 
including appellees, an hourly rate which was less than the minimum teachers’ 
salary schedule set forth in R.C. 3317.13(C).  During the same period and in 
accordance with R.C. 3317.14, the board annually adopted teachers’ salary 
schedules, which were incorporated into the collective bargaining agreements.  
The board received funds distributed under R.C. Chapter 3317, the School 
Foundation Program, in this period.  The board did not file the teachers’ salary 
schedules for school years 1991-1992 through 1994-1995 with either the 
Superintendent of Public Instruction or the State Department of Education.   
 
In April 1995, after appellees had requested to be compensated pursuant to 
the collectively bargained teachers’ salary schedules, the board adopted 
nonbargaining, nonadministrative certificated salary schedules for tutors that 
purported to cover tutor compensation from March 1989 through June 1995.    
These schedules exceeded the state minimum teachers’ salary schedule and 
contained increments based on years of service and academic training.  The board 
filed these schedules with the Superintendent of Public Instruction.  The board 
 
3
paid tutors, including appellees, the difference between what they had been 
previously paid during the March 1989-June 1995 period and the amount they 
were entitled to under the new schedules.    
 
The board has employed appellees as teachers assigned to tutorial duties for 
over three consecutive years.  Neither the board nor the district superintendent 
ever provided appellees with written notice of a recommendation for a limited 
contract.   
 
In September 1995, appellees filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for 
Cuyahoga County for a writ of mandamus to compel the board to pay them in 
accordance with the collectively bargained teachers’ salary schedules for the 
pertinent school years and to issue them continuing contracts.  Following the 
presentation of evidence and briefs, the court of appeals granted the writ.   
 
The cause is now before this court upon the board’s appeal as of right. 
____________________ 
 
McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co., L.P.A, and Mark B. Cohn; and 
Jerry Brodsky, for appellees. 
 
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey L.L.P., David J. Millstone and Loren L. 
Braverman, for appellant. 
 
4
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  In its first, second, and third propositions of law, the board 
asserts that the court of appeals erred in granting appellees’ writ of mandamus 
because (1) it is appropriate for a school board to file retroactive tutor salary 
schedules, (2) appellees do not have a right to be paid under teachers’ salary 
schedules which have not been filed with either the Superintendent of Public 
Instruction or the Department of Education, and (3) appellees have an adequate 
remedy at law by way of the grievance and arbitration provisions of the collective 
bargaining agreements.  We have already rejected these contentions in a case 
involving other tutors and the same school board.  State ex rel. Kabert v. Shaker 
Hts. City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1997), 78 Ohio St.3d 37, 676 N.E.2d 101.  
Kabert applies here.  Based on Kabert, the board’s first, second, and third 
propositions of law are overruled. 
 
In its fourth proposition of law, the board asserts that appellees are estopped 
from claiming status as teachers for purposes of the teachers’ salary schedules and 
entitlement to continuing contracts.  The board initially contends that a provision 
in the collective bargaining agreements in effect during the pertinent school years 
 
5
precluded part-time employees like appellees from attaining continuing contract 
status.   
 
But the board’s contention is meritless because appellees, and other tutors,  
were not members of the collective bargaining unit.  Appellees’ entitlement to 
continuing contracts and the higher teachers’ salaries incorporated into the 
collective bargaining agreements arose from statutes rather than the collective 
bargaining agreements. Kabert; State ex rel. Chavis v. Sycamore City School Dist. 
Bd. of Edn. (1994), 71 Ohio St.3d 26, 641 N.E.2d 188; State ex rel. Brown v. 
Milton-Union Exempted Village Bd. of Edn. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 21, 531 N.E.2d 
1297. Therefore, the contractual provision cited by the board did not apply to 
appellees. 
 
The board also contends that it would be “grossly inequitable” to compel it 
to issue continuing contracts because appellees did not go through the “rigorous 
evaluative process established by R.C. 3319.11 and 3319.111.”  This contention  
lacks merit because “‘R.C. 3319.11 specifically provides that a board’s failure to 
comply with the teacher evaluation requirements of R.C. 3319.111 results in the 
reemployment of the teacher.’”  State ex rel. Martines v. Cleveland City School 
Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 416, 417, 639 N.E.2d 80, 82, quoting State 
 
6
ex rel. Cassels v. Dayton City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (1994), 69 Ohio St.3d 217, 
222, 631 N.E.2d 150, 154.  Therefore, the board’s fourth proposition of law is 
overruled. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals did not err in granting 
appellees extraordinary relief in mandamus.  Accordingly, the judgment of the 
court of appeals is affirmed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, COOK and 
LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur.