[Cite as Wagenbrenner v. Ohio State Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2017-Ohio-7842.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Scott Wagenbrenner, : 

 Appellant-Appellant, : 

v. : No. 17AP-291 

 (C.P.C. No. 16CVF-12-10509)

Ohio State Department of Job and : 

Family Services, (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 : 

 Appellee-Appellee. 

 : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on September 26, 2017 

 

On brief: Law Offices of James P. Connors, and James P. 

Connors, for appellant. Argued: James P. Connors. 

On brief: Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Alan 

Schwepe, for appellee. Argued: Alan Schwepe. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas 

TYACK, P.J. 

{¶ 1} Scott Wagenbrenner is appealing from the denial of his application for 

unemployment compensation. He assigns a single error for our review: 

THE TRIAL COURT AND UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION REVIEW COMMISSION ERRED BY 

DENYING SCOTT WAGENBRENNER'S UNEMPLOYMENT 

CLAIM BECAUSE ITS DECISION WAS UNLAWFUL, 

UNREASONABLE, AND AGAINST THE MANIFEST 

WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE. 

{¶ 2} As can be inferred from the assignments of error, Wagenbrenner was 

working as a sales representative when he was fired. After he applied for unemployment 
No. 17AP-291 2 

benefits, the benefits were denied based on a finding that he was fired for just cause. He 

and his counsel contest that finding which was affirmed on administrative appeal to the 

Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

{¶ 3} Wagenbrenner was terminated during June 2016 before the second quarter 

for 2016 was completed. The Ohio Department of Job and Family Services ("ODJFS") 

initially found that Wagenbrenner was discharged without just cause and then almost 

immediately reversed itself and denied Wagenbrenner's claim. 

{¶ 4} Wagenbrenner had worked for over 5 years for Vector Security, Inc. as a 

commercial sales representative. He apparently met his sales quotas until he failed to 

meet his quota for the first quarter of 2016. As for the second quarter, he was expected to 

bring in revenue of $27,000 per month plus $345 per month in recurring monthly 

revenue ("RMR"). In April 2016, he brought in less than $22,000 in revenue and less 

than $90 in RMR. In May 2016, his revenue figure was only $8,106 and his RMR was 

$25. 

{¶ 5} For a court to overturn a decision of the review commission, the court must 

find that the decision of the review commission was unlawful, unreasonable or against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. See R.C. 4141.282(H). 

{¶ 6} We cannot say the review commission's decision was unlawful or 

unreasonable. Wagenbrenner had missed his required quotas for the first quarter and 

two subsequent months and seemed to be on the way to miss the quota for a third month. 

Terminating the employment of a sales representative who has met less than half his 

required sales quota one month and less than one third of his required sales quota the 

next month is not unlawful or unreasonable. 

{¶ 7} Further the evidence as to the failure to make first quarter quota and the 

quotas in April and May 2016 is clear and uncontested. The fact that Wagenbrenner 

might have pulled in some additional revenues in the last ten days of June 2016 does not 

change the April and May figures. The review commission's decision was not against the 

manifest weight of the evidence. 
No. 17AP-291 3 

{¶ 8} Applying the standard set forth in R.C. 4141.282(H), the assignment of error 

is overruled. The judgment of the court of common pleas affirming the review 

commission is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

LUPER SCHUSTER and BRUNNER, JJ., concur.