Title: State ex rel. Byers v. Sheriff's Office

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. Byers v. Miami Cty. Sheriff’s Office, Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3916.] 
 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2012-OHIO-3916 
THE STATE EX REL. BYERS, APPELLANT, v. MIAMI COUNTY  
SHERIFF’S OFFICE ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. Byers v. Miami Cty. Sheriff’s Office,  
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3916.] 
Civil service—Mandamus to compel reinstatement to former position of 
employment—Appeal to State Personnel Board of Review constitutes 
adequate remedy in ordinary course of law—Effect of collective-
bargaining agreement—Writ denied. 
(No. 2011-2069—Submitted August 22, 2012—Decided September 5, 2012.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Miami County, 
No. 09-CA-42, 2011-Ohio-6125. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals denying the request 
of appellant, Douglas D. Byers, for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, the 
Miami County Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Charles A. Cox, to reinstate him 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
pursuant to R.C. 145.362 to his previous deputy-sheriff position and salary or to a 
similar position and salary and to award him back pay and benefits. 
{¶ 2} The court of appeals correctly held that Byers had had an adequate 
remedy by way of a civil-service appeal to the State Personnel Board of Review 
(“SPBR”) from the sheriff’s office’s refusal to perform the requested actions.  
“Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain and adequate remedy in the ordinary 
course of law.”  State ex rel. McClaren v. Ontario, 119 Ohio St.3d 105, 2008-
Ohio-3867, 892 N.E.2d 440, ¶ 15; R.C. 2731.05.  “An administrative appeal 
generally provides an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that 
precludes extraordinary relief in mandamus.”  State ex rel. Hilltop Basic 
Resources, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 118 Ohio St.3d 131, 2008-Ohio-1966, 886 N.E.2d 
839, ¶ 23.  “Mandamus may not be employed as a substitute for a civil-service 
appeal.”  State ex rel. Turner v. Houk, 112 Ohio St.3d 561, 2007-Ohio-814, 862 
N.E.2d 104, ¶ 9. 
{¶ 3} Classified civil-service employees like Byers have an adequate 
remedy by administrative appeal to SPBR from an employer’s refusal to reinstate 
them to their salaries and former positions.  See R.C. 124.03(A), which specifies 
that the SPBR has the power to hear appeals of classified civil-service employees 
from final decisions concerning discharge, which includes disability separations; 
State ex rel. Copen v. Kaley, 11th Dist. No. 99-P-0041, 2000 WL 127273, *3 
(denying a writ of mandamus to compel a county sheriff to restore a relator to his 
previous position as a full-time deputy sheriff because the relator had an adequate 
remedy by way of appeal to the SPBR:  “the [R.C. 124.03(A)] term ‘discharge’ 
would cover a county official’s decision not to allow a classified civil servant to 
return to his former position following his recovery from a physical disability”); 
Darnell v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys. of Ohio, 10th Dist. Nos. 98AP-303 and 
98AP-305, 1999 WL 1159 (denying a writ of mandamus to compel a state 
employer to return a classified civil-service employee to her former position 
January Term, 2012 
3 
 
because the employee had an adequate remedy by appeal to SPBR from the 
employer’s decision refusing to return the employee to the previous position). 
{¶ 4} On appeal, Byers claims that the court of appeals erred in so 
holding because Section 33.2 of the collective-bargaining agreement between the 
sheriff’s office and the employee union prevented him from instituting an appeal 
to SPBR. 
{¶ 5} But Byers waived this claim by failing to raise it before the court 
entered its judgment denying the writ on this basis, even though appellees 
expressly asserted that he had an adequate remedy at law by appeal to the SPBR.  
See, e.g., State ex rel. Compton v. Sutula, 132 Ohio St.3d 35, 2012-Ohio-1653, 
968 N.E.2d 476, ¶ 4.  Although Byers did raise this claim in his Civ.R. 60(B) 
motion for relief from the judgment he appealed, he does not argue on appeal that 
the court of appeals erred in denying his Civ.R. 60(B) motion. 
{¶ 6} Moreover, even if Byers had not waived this claim on appeal, he 
invited any error by the court in ignoring the collective-bargaining agreement by 
arguing that his claim was governed by state law, i.e., R.C. 145.362, rather than 
by the agreement. 
{¶ 7} Finally, the provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement that 
Byers now claims barred his ability to appeal to SPBR apply only to subjects 
addressed in the agreement.  Byers cites no provision of the agreement 
specifically addressing the rights concerning recipients of disability benefits who 
are determined to no longer be disabled and are entitled to reinstatement under 
R.C. 145.362.  See State ex rel. Couch v. Trimble Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 
120 Ohio St.3d 75, 2008-Ohio-4910, 896 N.E.2d 690, ¶ 23. 
{¶ 8} Therefore, the court of appeals did not err in denying the requested 
extraordinary relief in mandamus, and the judgment is affirmed. 
Judgment affirmed. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’DONNELL, 
LANZINGER, CUPP, and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Brannon & Associates, Dwight D. Brannon, and David D. Brannon, for 
appellant. 
 
Gary Nasal, Miami County Prosecuting Attorney, and Eugene P. Nevada, 
Special Counsel, for appellees. 
______________________