Title: State ex rel. Schaengold v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys.

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Schaengold v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys., 114 Ohio St.3d 147, 2007-
Ohio-3760.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. SCHAENGOLD, APPELLANT, v. OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES 
RETIREMENT SYSTEM ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Schaengold v. Ohio Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys., 
 114 Ohio St.3d 147, 2007-Ohio-3760.] 
Public Employees Retirement System — Temporary magistrate for municipal 
court considered independent contractor, not employee. 
(No. 2006-1920 ─ Submitted July 10, 2007 ─ Decided August 8, 2007.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, 
No. 05AP-1002, 2006-Ohio-5093. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment denying a writ of mandamus to 
compel appellee, Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (“PERS”), to treat 
the service of an attorney employed as a temporary magistrate by a municipal 
court as that of a public employee entitled to PERS membership and credit.  
Because the retirement board did not abuse its discretion by determining that the 
attorney acted as an independent contractor rather than as a municipal court 
employee, we affirm. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, Gary C. Schaengold, is an attorney licensed to practice 
law in Ohio since 1982.  At times between 1986 and 2004, Schaengold served as 
a temporary magistrate for appellee Dayton Municipal Court.  Schaengold did so 
at the request of the administrator of the Dayton Municipal Court during the 
absence of a full-time magistrate, and he was under no obligation to perform these 
services.  In 2002, Schaengold was one of nine different attorneys who performed 
services as temporary magistrates for the Dayton Municipal Court. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶ 3} Schaengold’s service as a temporary magistrate was pursuant to a 
bilateral contract that did not include fringe benefits like vacation or sick leave.  
He was not eligible for workers’ compensation or unemployment compensation.  
Each time Schaengold served as a temporary magistrate, the Dayton Municipal 
Court appointed him by an entry signed by the administrative judge.  The 
municipal court and appellee city of Dayton paid Schaengold a flat fee for his 
services in either full- or half-day increments.  Schaengold was paid under a 
general purchase order between the city and the municipal court, which did not 
contain the names of any of the listed attorneys because the municipal court did 
not know who would be performing temporary magistrate services in any given 
year.  Schaengold was never on the city or municipal court payroll, and neither 
the city nor the municipal court withheld PERS contributions on his behalf.  
Schaengold was paid as little as $115.38 in 1986 and as much as $8,300 in 1999.  
For tax purposes, Schaengold was paid pursuant to an Internal Revenue Service 
form 1099 for independent contractors instead of a W-2 form for employees. 
{¶ 4} During the time that he served as a temporary magistrate for the 
Dayton Municipal Court, Schaengold used his independent professional judgment 
in conducting hearings and issuing decisions.  Schaengold was not subject to 
anyone else’s direction or control.  Schaengold was entitled to use court facilities 
and personnel when he served as a temporary magistrate. 
{¶ 5} During the same period that Schaengold served as a temporary 
magistrate for the Dayton Municipal Court, he maintained a private law practice 
and represented private clients and appeared on their behalf in the Dayton 
Municipal Court. 
{¶ 6} Before December 1999, Schaengold did not complain about the 
Dayton Municipal Court’s practice of treating him as an independent contractor 
and not withholding PERS contributions on his behalf.  In December 1999, 
however, Schaengold claimed that he was a public employee entitled to PERS 
January Term, 2007 
3 
contributions.  In 2004, PERS issued a senior-staff determination that Schaengold 
was a public employee while serving as a part-time magistrate with the Dayton 
Municipal Court from 1986 to 2004 and was thus entitled to PERS membership 
and credit.  On appeal to the PERS Board, the board concluded that Schaengold 
was not a public employee while performing service as a Dayton Municipal Court 
temporary magistrate and was not eligible for PERS coverage for that 
employment.  In so concluding, the board “determined that the factors weighed 
more heavily in concluding that the service is more of that of an independent 
contractor rather than a public employee, including the facts that Mr. Schaengold 
is not required to report to the court on a daily basis, he has the option of passing 
on assignments if he has scheduling conflicts, and represents individual clients in 
the Dayton Municipal Court on days when he is not on the bench.” 
{¶ 7} Shortly thereafter, Schaengold filed a complaint in the Court of 
Appeals for Franklin County for a writ of mandamus to compel appellees, PERS, 
Dayton, and the Dayton Municipal Court, to treat his magistrate service as 
constituting public employment and to credit him with that service.  The parties 
submitted briefs and stipulated evidence.  A court-appointed magistrate 
recommended granting the requested writ of mandamus.  Appellees filed 
objections to the magistrate’s decision.  In October 2006, the court of appeals 
sustained some of the objections and denied the writ.  The court of appeals 
concluded that the retirement board did not abuse its discretion in determining 
that Schaengold was not a public employee subject to PERS. 
{¶ 8} Schaengold asserts that the court of appeals erred in denying the 
requested writ of mandamus.  “[M]andamus is an appropriate remedy where no 
statutory right of appeal is available to correct an abuse of discretion by an 
administrative body.”  State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 
Ohio St.3d 327, 2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 14.  Because there is no 
statutory right to appeal the retirement board’s denial of service credit, mandamus 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
is an appropriate remedy.  State ex rel. Van Dyke v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 
99 Ohio St.3d 430, 2003-Ohio-4123, 793 N.E.2d 438, ¶ 20; R.C. 145.01(A) (“In 
all cases of doubt, the public employees retirement board shall determine whether 
any person is a public employee, and its decision is final”); Ohio Adm.Code 145-
1-11(D) (“The retirement board’s decision on any determination conducted 
pursuant to this rule shall be final and determinative”).  In order to be entitled to 
the requested writ of mandamus, Schaengold had to establish that the board 
abused its discretion by denying his request for PERS service credit for his time 
served as a temporary magistrate with the Dayton Municipal Court.  Van Dyke at 
¶ 21; State ex rel. Mallory v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (1998), 82 Ohio St.3d 
235, 239, 694 N.E.2d 1356.  An abuse of discretion exists when a decision is 
unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.  See State ex rel. Worrell v. Ohio 
Police & Fire Pension Fund, 112 Ohio St.3d 116, 2006-Ohio-6513, 858 N.E.2d 
380, ¶ 10. 
 
{¶ 9} Under R.C. 145.01(A)(3), a public employee for purposes of PERS 
membership includes “an employee of a public employer,” and “[c]redit for such 
service shall be included as total service credit, provided that the employee makes 
the payments required by this chapter, and the employer makes the payment 
required by sections 145.48 and 145.51 of the Revised Code.” 
{¶ 10} Nevertheless, the R.C. 145.01(A) definition of public employee 
does not include any person who “is employed on a contractual basis as an 
independent contractor under a personal service contract with a public employer.”  
R.C. 145.012(A)(1).  For purposes of R.C. Chapter 145, an “independent 
contractor” is a person who: 
{¶ 11} “(a) Is a party to a bilateral agreement which may be a written 
document, ordinance, or resolution that defines the compensation, rights, 
obligations, benefits and responsibilities of both parties; 
January Term, 2007 
5 
{¶ 12} “(b) Is paid a fee, retainer or other payment by contractual 
arrangement for particular services; 
{¶ 13} “(c) Is not eligible for workers’ compensation or unemployment 
compensation; 
{¶ 14} “(d) May not be eligible for employee fringe benefits such as 
vacation or sick leave; 
{¶ 15} “(e) Does not appear on a public employer’s payroll; 
{¶ 16} “(f) Is required to provide his own supplies and equipment, and 
provide and pay his assistants or replacements if necessary; 
{¶ 17} “(g) Is not controlled or supervised by personnel of the public 
employer as to the manner of work; and  
{¶ 18} “(h) Should receive an Internal Revenue Service form 1099 for 
income tax reporting purposes.”  Ohio Adm.Code 145-1-42(A)(2) (formerly 145-
5-15). 
{¶ 19} As the court of appeals concluded, a “clear legal right to a writ of 
mandamus exists when the board is found to have abused its discretion by 
entering an order that is not supported by some evidence.”  2006-Ohio-5093, ¶ 33.  
See, e.g., Kinsey v. Bd. of Trustees of Police & Firemen’s Disability & Pension 
Fund of Ohio (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 224, 225, 551 N.E.2d 989; see, also, State ex 
rel. Peyton v. Schumacher (Nov. 16, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-78, 2000 
WL 1715901, *1, and Gerchak v. Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd. (Sept. 15, 1998), 
Franklin App. No. 98AP-325, 1998 WL 635313, *2, applying the same standard 
to uphold Public Employees Retirement Board determinations that claimants were 
independent contractors rather than public employees. 
{¶ 20} There is sufficient evidence here to support the board’s 
determination that Schaengold was an independent contractor rather than a public 
employee when he served as a temporary magistrate for the Dayton Municipal 
Court.  Schaengold was paid a flat fee by bilateral contract for services 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
performed, was not eligible for workers’ compensation, unemployment 
compensation, or employee fringe benefits, did not appear on either the city’s or 
municipal court’s payroll, was not controlled or supervised in conducting hearings 
or in issuing decisions, and received IRS form 1099 for tax purposes.  See Ohio 
Adm.Code 145-1-42.  Although he was not required to provide a replacement 
when he could not serve, the board found that under his contract, he could decline 
assignments if he had scheduling conflicts. 
{¶ 21} Moreover, as emphasized by the board, Schaengold was not 
required to report to the court on a daily basis and continued to represent clients 
before the Dayton Municipal Court.  If Schaengold had been considered an 
employee — even a part-time one — of the municipal court, he would have been 
precluded from practicing law before that court.  Sections (A) and (B)(2) of 
Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct (a part-time magistrate “[s]hall not 
practice law in the court on which he or she serves or in any court subject to the 
appellate jurisdiction of the court on which he or she serves”); Board of 
Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline, Opinion No. 98-3 (Apr. 3, 1998) 
(“A part-time magistrate of a common pleas court may not practice law in the 
court on which he or she serves or on which the appointing judge serves”). 
{¶ 22} Finally, the authorities cited by Schaengold in support of his 
appeal, which include a New Jersey appellate decision involving a municipal 
court judge, Rokos v. New Jersey Dept. of Treasury (App.Div.1989), 236 N.J. 
Super. 174, 564 A.2d 1217, and two Ohio Attorney General Opinions that do not 
address the dispositive issue here, Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. Nos. 2004-030 and 90-
089, are inapposite. 
{¶ 23} Based on the evidence introduced by the parties, the board did not 
act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable manner in concluding that 
Schaengold acted as an independent contractor rather than as a public employee 
when he was employed as a temporary magistrate for the Dayton Municipal 
January Term, 2007 
7 
Court.  Therefore, the court of appeals properly denied the requested 
extraordinary relief in mandamus.  By so holding, we accord the board the 
deference to which it is entitled in interpreting the statutes and administrative 
rules.  See, e.g., Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Conrad 
(2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 282, 289, 750 N.E.2d 130.  Accordingly, we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, LANZINGER and 
CUPP, JJ., CONCUR. 
 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs in judgment only. 
__________________ 
 
Gary C. Schaengold, pro se. 
 
Marc Dann, Attorney General, and Laura Erebia Parsons, Assistant 
Attorney General, for appellee Ohio Public Employees Retirement System. 
 
Patrick J. Bonfield, Dayton Director of Law, and John C. Musto, Assistant 
City Attorney, for appellees city of Dayton and Dayton Municipal Court. 
______________________