Title: State ex rel. Ullman v. Hayes

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

[Cite as State ex rel. Ullman v. Hayes, 103 Ohio St.3d 405, 2004-Ohio-5469.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. ULLMANN, APPELLANT, v. HAYES, DIR., ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Ullmann v. Hayes, 103 Ohio St.3d 405, 2004-Ohio-5469.] 
Abolishment of classified employment position — Mandamus — Relator not 
entitled to writ, since she had adequate legal remedy by requesting 
documents during administrative process — No evidence of wrongful 
exclusion from employment — Court of appeals’ dismissal of complaint 
affirmed. 
(No. 2004-0718 — Submitted September 15, 2004 — Decided October 27, 2004.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 03AP-299, 2004-
Ohio-1275. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶1} 
In January 1993, Ohio Bureau of Employment Services (“OBES”) 
terminated its employment of appellant, attorney Victoria E. Ullmann.  On appeal, 
the State Personnel Board of Review (“SPBR”) found that Ullmann had been 
overclassified and ordered OBES to choose one of the options listed in Ohio 
Adm.Code 123:1-3-01(O).  OBES responded to the board’s order by abolishing 
Ullmann’s position effective November 1993. 
{¶2} 
On Ullmann’s appeal challenging her job abolishment, SPBR 
upheld the OBES decision.  On appeal under R.C. 119.12, the Franklin County 
Court of Common Pleas held that the decision to abolish Ullmann’s position was 
supported by reliable, substantial, and probative evidence.  On further appeal, the 
Court of Appeals for Franklin County affirmed the common pleas court’s 
judgment.  Ullmann v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv.  (June 18, 1996), Franklin App. 
No. 96APE01-79, 1996 WL 339967, appeal not allowed (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 
1484, 673 N.E.2d 144. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
{¶3} 
Ullmann subsequently filed other actions, including one in the 
Court of Claims alleging that the OBES abolition of her position constituted age 
discrimination.  The Court of Claims rejected Ullmann’s claim and rendered 
judgment in favor of the state agency.  Ullmann v. Ohio Bur. of Jobs & Family 
Servs., 121 Ohio Misc.2d 81, 2002-Ohio-7404, 782 N.E.2d 185.  The court of 
appeals affirmed.  Ullmann v. Ohio Bur. of Job & Family Serv., Franklin App. 
No. 03AP-184, 2004-Ohio-1622, 2004 WL 628231. 
{¶4} 
On March 28, 2003, Ullmann filed a complaint in mandamus in the 
Court of Appeals for Franklin County against appellees, Tom Hayes, Director of 
the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”), the successor 
agency to OBES, Attorney General Jim Petro, and SPBR Chairman Roger W. 
Tracy.  In her complaint, Ullmann alleged that SPBR’s decision supporting her 
job abolishment and her subsequent unsuccessful litigation and appeals had been 
procured by the perjured testimony of the former OBES chief legal counsel.  
Ullmann claimed that she first discovered this alleged perjury when she sought 
and received agency records in discovery in connection with separate litigation. 
{¶5} 
Ullmann asked the court of appeals to (1) compel SPBR to vacate 
all previous orders in the job-abolishment case, (2) order that ODJFS reinstate 
Ullmann to her attorney position with all accrued back pay and benefits, (3) order 
the Attorney General to institute policies to ensure that all perjury by state 
employees discovered by his office be handled properly and that his staff be 
trained regarding the Disciplinary Rules, perjury, and fraud, and (4) order that if 
the court will not reinstate relator to her former attorney position, SPBR hold 
another hearing at which the former OBES chief legal counsel is barred from 
testifying.  Appellees moved to dismiss Ullmann’s complaint. 
{¶6} 
On March 22, 2004, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion 
and dismissed Ullmann’s mandamus complaint.  The cause is now before this 
court on an appeal as of right. 
January Term, 2004 
3 
{¶7} 
Ullmann asserts that the court of appeals erred in dismissing her 
mandamus claim.  For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the court 
of appeals. 
{¶8} 
Ullmann primarily claims that because there is no mechanism 
comparable to Civ.R. 60(B) to vacate administrative decisions based on concealed 
fraud after the appellate process has been exhausted, she lacks an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of law.  Mandamus will not issue if there is a plain 
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Ross v. State, 
102 Ohio St.3d 73, 2004-Ohio-1827, 806 N.E.2d 553, ¶ 5; R.C. 2731.05.  The 
alternative must be complete, beneficial, and speedy in order to constitute an 
adequate remedy at law.  State ex rel. Chagrin Falls v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of 
Commrs., 96 Ohio St.3d 400, 2002-Ohio-4906, 775 N.E.2d 512, ¶ 6. 
{¶9} 
Ullmann had an adequate remedy by way of her initial board 
proceeding and subsequent administrative appeal to raise her fraud claim.  
Nothing prevented Ullmann from requesting the same records that she later 
received in subsequent litigation and now relies upon to support her claim of 
fraud in her initial board proceeding.  Ullmann could have requested that SPBR 
subpoena the pertinent records that she ultimately asked for and received.  R.C. 
124.03(G).  Ullmann could also have sought to introduce these records in her 
appeal to the common pleas court insofar as the evidence that they contained was 
newly discovered and could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence 
before the board hearing.  R.C. 119.12.  These alternate remedies would have 
provided Ullmann with complete, beneficial, and speedy relief to raise her claims 
of alleged fraud.  The fact that these remedies are no longer available does not 
render them inadequate.  State ex rel. Pontillo v. Pub. Emp. Retirement Sys. Bd., 
98 Ohio St.3d 500, 2003-Ohio-2120, 787 N.E.2d 643, ¶ 34. 
{¶10} Moreover, Ullmann is not entitled to a writ of mandamus to 
compel her reinstatement to her classified employment with ODJFS because there 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
has been no final determination that she was wrongfully excluded from 
employment.  State ex rel. Baker v. State Personnel Bd. of Rev. (1999), 85 Ohio 
St.3d 640, 644, 710 N.E.2d 706; State ex rel. Nichols v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 205, 
208, 648 N.E.2d 823.  In fact, the final determination is that she was not 
wrongfully excluded from employment. 
{¶11} Finally, Ullmann’s education-and-training claim against the 
Attorney General is not cognizable in mandamus.  There is no statutory duty 
imposed on the Attorney General to perform the requested acts, and we will not 
imply one.  “ ‘ It is axiomatic that in mandamus proceedings, the creation of the 
legal duty that a relator seeks to enforce is the distinct function of the legislative 
branch of government, and courts are not authorized to create the legal duty 
enforceable in mandamus.’ ” (Emphasis sic.)  State ex rel. Stiles v. School Emp. 
Retirement Sys., 102 Ohio St.3d 156, 2004-Ohio-2140, 807 N.E.2d 353, ¶ 15, 
quoting State ex rel. Pipoly v. State Teachers Retirement Sys., 95 Ohio St.3d 327, 
2002-Ohio-2219, 767 N.E.2d 719, ¶ 18. 
{¶12} Based on the foregoing, the court of appeals properly dismissed 
Ullmann’s mandamus claim.  Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals.1 
Judgment affirmed. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, 
O’CONNOR and O’DONNELL, JJ., concur. 
__________________ 
 
Victoria E. Ullmann, pro se. 
 
Jim Petro, Attorney General, Holly J. Hunt, Timothy A. Lecklider, and 
Michael D. Allen, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellees. 
                                                 
1.  We deny appellant’s motions to grant oral argument and to determine the existence of a conflict 
of interest.