[Cite as Lanzo v. Campbell City School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2010-Ohio-4779.]

 STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 SEVENTH DISTRICT 

RAYMOND LANZO, ) 

 ) CASE NO. 09 MA 154 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, ) 

 ) 

 - VS - ) OPINION 

 ) 

CAMPBELL CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ) 

BOARD OF EDUCATION, ) 

 ) 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLEE. ) 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Civil Appeal from Common Pleas 

Court, Case No. 08 CV 3229. 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed. 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellant: Attorney James E. Lanzo 

4126 Youngstown-Poland Rd. 

Youngstown, OH 44514 

For Defendant-Appellee: Attorney James E. Roberts 

100 Federal Plaza East 

Suite 600 

Youngstown, OH 44503 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

Hon. Joseph J. Vukovich 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Dated: September 24, 2010 
- 2 - 

DeGenaro, J. 

{¶1} This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court 

and the parties’ briefs. Appellant, Raymond Lanzo appeals the August 4, 2009 decision 

of the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas, which adopted the June 24, 2009 

magistrate's decision upholding the decision of Appellee, Campbell City School District 

Board of Education, to terminate Lanzo's teaching contract. 

{¶2} Lanzo argues that his use of corrective actions, such as the incident 

involving a disruptive student that precipitated the Board's review, are appropriate and 

necessary in order to maintain a productive and safe learning environment. Lanzo argues 

that the trial court abused its discretion in upholding the termination decision when 

Lanzo’s actions did not constitute "good and just cause" pursuant to R.C. 3319.16. 

{¶3} Lanzo's physical intervention with a student merely for the purpose of 

redirecting the student's attention was a violation of school policy and disproportionate to 

the misbehavior involved. More importantly, the Board's termination decision was based 

on Lanzo's cumulative misconduct over three years and not just on the "last straw" 

incident. Lanzo's repeated misconduct constituted "good and just cause" for termination, 

thus the trial court's decision was not an abuse of discretion and we affirm. 

Facts and Procedural History 

{¶4} Lanzo is a middle school teacher who was employed by the Board for the 

2003-2004 school year and subsequent years, pursuant to renewed one-year limited 

teaching contracts. The Board placed Lanzo on administrative leave on November 30, 

2007, after the parent of a student filed a complaint that Lanzo had used inappropriate 

physical discipline with her son three days earlier. During the Board's investigation of the 

incident, it was also alleged that during the 2007-2008 school year, Lanzo had frequently 

pulled the ears of his male students and twisted their hair. 

{¶5} On January 31, 2008, the Board adopted a resolution suspending Lanzo's 

employment effective February 1, 2008, and scheduling a termination decision in the 

event that Lanzo did not request a hearing. Lanzo requested a public hearing and the 
- 3 - 

appointment of an impartial referee, pursuant to R.C. 3319.16 and R.C. 3319.161. The 

parties agreed on a referee, who submitted his findings of fact and recommendations to 

the Board after three days of hearings in April, 2008. 

{¶6} The referee found that on November 27, 2007, Lanzo's fifth grade class and 

another teacher's fifth grade class were viewing a video together, during which one of the 

other teacher's students was talking. The other teacher called out the student's name, 

but the student did not cease talking. Without the other teacher's permission, Lanzo 

grabbed the student by the arm or shirt, forcing him to stand, pulled the student to the 

front of the room, put his hand on the student's chin and pointed the student's face toward 

the video screen. The referee found that Lanzo's use of physical force violated the 

Board's policy against corporal punishment. The referee also found that Lanzo had 

twisted the hair and pulled the ears of some male students on several occasions during 

the school year leading up to November 27, 2007. The referee found that Lanzo's 

actions were in direct violation of the Board's policy against the inappropriate touching of 

students. 

{¶7} The referee's findings of fact included the Board's prior discipline and 

corrective actions against Lanzo for four previous instances of misconduct. First, on 

September 6, 2005, Lanzo had been reprimanded for misconduct and disrespect at a 

school function, specifically, raising his voice to a student's grandparent. Second, on 

March 13, 2006, Lanzo had been reprimanded for misconduct, disrespect and 

insubordination, specifically, leaving his classroom unattended and interrupting a private 

meeting between the principal, a teacher and a parent, and leaving his classroom 

unattended a second time and twice interrupting another teacher's class. Third, on March 

17, 2006, Lanzo was placed on administrative leave pending investigation, after the 

teacher's union president reported to the principal that Lanzo had indicated to the 

president that Lanzo would slash the principal's tires. This resulted in Lanzo signing a 

"last chance" agreement with the school on April 26, 2006, consenting to possible 

termination without the right to appeal, for any further misconduct through the end of the 

2006-2007 school year. Although the termination provisions of the agreement were to 
- 4 - 

expire at the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the agreement specified that Lanzo's 

history of misconduct could still be considered in any future disciplinary actions. Lanzo 

returned from administrative leave on May 1, 2006. 

{¶8} The fourth and final prior disciplinary incident occurred on June 7, 2006, 

when Lanzo left his class unattended, and an altercation between students occurred. 

Lanzo equivocated in his explanation to the principal regarding the sequence of events 

that led up to the altercation, and his explanation of his exact whereabouts was 

contradicted by security camera footage. The Superintendant allowed Lanzo a "second 

last chance," and negotiated twenty days of unpaid administrative leave, rather than 

immediate termination. Lanzo was not cited for any further misconduct until the present 

citations during the 2007-2008 school year. 

{¶9} The referee concluded that Lanzo's most recent incidents of misconduct 

involved the physical mistreatment of students in violation of the Board's policies, which 

constituted good and just cause for terminating his teaching contract. The referee further 

found that the cumulative impact of Lanzo's ongoing misconduct necessitated his 

termination. On July 9, 2008, the Board unanimously adopted the referee's findings and 

recommendation, and terminated Lanzo's teaching contract. 

{¶10} Lanzo filed a timely complaint with the Mahoning County Court of Common 

Pleas, appealing the decision of the Board. The magistrate considered the parties' briefs 

and oral arguments as well as the record of the Board's proceedings. On June 24, 2009, 

the magistrate concluded that Lanzo had been afforded all procedural rights under R.C. 

3319.16, that the referee's factual findings were supported by the record, and that 

substantial and credible evidence supported the conclusion that the Board terminated 

Lanzo's teaching contract for good and just cause. 

{¶11} Lanzo timely filed Objections to the Magistrate's Decision, presenting 

arguments regarding due process, findings of fact, as well as the argument that Lanzo 

presently asserts on appeal: that his conduct did not constitute "good and just cause" for 

termination pursuant to R.C. 3319.16. On August 4, 2009, the trial court upheld the 

Magistrate's Decision and denied Lanzo's prayer for relief.
- 5 - 

R.C. 3319.16 Contract Termination for "Good and Just Cause" 

{¶12} In his sole assignment of error on appeal, Lanzo asserts: 

{¶13} "The Appellants [sic] actions were not an act of gross inefficiency, 

immorality, or good cause as defined by the statute and thus the action of the board was 

unlawful, and the trial Court's ruling upholding the actions of the board was an abuse of 

discretion." 

{¶14} When a school board commences proceedings to terminate a teacher's 

contract, the teacher may request a hearing before the board or before an appointed 

referee. R.C. 3319.16; R.C. 3319.161. When the proceeding is conducted by a referee, 

a board must accept the referee's findings of fact, unless they are against the greater 

weight or preponderance of the evidence. Aldridge v. Huntington Local School Dist. Bd. 

of Edn. (1988), 38 Ohio St.3d 154, 527 N.E.2d 291, at paragraph one of the syllabus. 

The school board has the discretion to accept or reject the referee's recommendation, 

unless the school board’s decision is contrary to law. Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. 

{¶15} A teacher whose contract has been terminated pursuant to the above 

proceeding may appeal the decision through an original action before the court of 

common pleas. R.C. 3319.16. The trial court has the discretion to hold additional 

hearings and consider additional evidence if necessary, but it may not reverse a board's 

termination order unless the order is against the manifest weight of the evidence. See 

Oleske v. Hilliard City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (2001), 146 Ohio App.3d 57, 62, 764 

N.E.2d 1110. Unless a school board "violated a statutory right or constitutional obligation, 

a trial court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board." Kitchen v. Bd. of Edn. of 

the Fairfield City School Dist., 12th Dist. No. CA2006-09-234, 2007-Ohio-2846, at ¶17, 

quoting Bertolini v. Whitehall City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 595, 

604, 744 N.E.2d 1245. 

{¶16} An appellate court's review of a termination proceeding under R.C. 3319.16 

is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's decision constituted an abuse of 

discretion. Yarian v. Struthers City School Bd. of Edn. (June 29, 1988), 7th Dist. No. 87 

C.A. 95, at *2. Absent an abuse of discretion, “the court of appeals may not engage in 
- 6 - 

what amounts to a substitution of judgment of the trial court in an R.C. 3319.16 

proceeding." Graziano v. Bd. of Edn. of Amherst Exempted Village School Dist. (1987), 

32 Ohio St.3d 289, 294, 513 N.E.2d 282. 

{¶17} Lanzo does not present an argument against any findings of fact, and only 

argues that his actions did not amount to gross inefficiency, immorality, or good cause as 

defined by R.C. 3319.16. Because the decisions below did not make any findings as to 

“gross inefficiency” or “immorality,” the issue before this court is limited to whether the trial 

court abused its discretion in determining that Lanzo's actions, as described by the 

referee, the Board, and the magistrate, constituted "good and just cause" for termination 

as intended by R.C. 3319.16. 

{¶18} What constitutes "good and just cause" can depend on the context and the 

unique facts of each case. The Ohio Supreme Court has explained that the concept of 

"good and just cause" must involve a "fairly serious matter" that is of the same magnitude 

as the other terms listed in R.C. 3319.16, such as "gross inefficiency or immorality" or 

"willful and persistent violations." Hale v. Bd. of Edn., City of Lacaster (1968), 13 Ohio 

St.2d 92, 98-99, 42 O.O.2d 286, 234 N.E.2d 583. 

{¶19} In Oleske, a teacher was cited for multiple instances of telling jokes to 

students that contained sexual content and ethnic insensitivity, and multiple instances of 

intentionally mispronouncing a fellow teacher's name as "turd" in front of her students. 

Oleske at 59-60. The teacher had an exemplary teaching record for over twenty years, 

with no previous incidents of misconduct. Id. at 62. The school board accepted the 

referee's recommendation that the teacher's actions constituted "good and just cause" for 

termination. Id. at 60. The trial court affirmed the board's decision, and the Tenth District 

further affirmed, finding that it was not an abuse of discretion to find that the teacher's 

actions constituted a "fairly serious matter" and rose to the level of "good and just cause" 

for termination. Id. at 64-65. 

{¶20} In James v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Edn. (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 392, 663 

N.E.2d 1361, an elementary school teacher in a multi-handicapped unit exercised 

aversive behavior management techniques, such as placing a towel over a student's head 
- 7 - 

to focus the student's attention or using hot sauce to dissuade a student from eating 

objects such as plastic, bolts or feces. James at 394. Upon rejecting the referee's 

recommendation, the school board terminated the teacher's contract. The trial court 

reversed the board's decision, and the Eleventh District affirmed, finding that the teacher 

had been given no warning that her techniques should be changed, the teacher's 

techniques were recognized, albeit disfavored, treatment protocols, and the school did not 

produce evidence of any policy that prohibited the teacher's conduct. Id. at 398-399. 

{¶21} Conversely, in Beranek v. Martins Ferry City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Jan. 

20, 1989), 7th Dist. No. 88-B-11, the trial court affirmed the school board’s decision to 

terminate a male teacher even though the board failed to produce evidence of a policy 

that defined what constituted "inappropriate touching." Id. at *4. This Court found 

common sense dictated that the teacher intentionally touching female students' buttocks 

or chests was inappropriate, and that such actions justified the school board's decision to 

terminate the teacher's contract pursuant to R.C. 3319.16, even in the absence of a policy 

defining “inappropriate touching”. Id. at *6. Finally, in Yarian, this Court held that a 

teacher's repeated acts of insubordination, such as leaving school premises, failing to 

attend meetings, excessive absenteeism, and telling falsehoods to attempt to excuse an 

absence amounts to "other good and just cause" for termination, even if the conduct does 

not violate an explicit rule or regulation of the school. Yarian, supra, at *4. 

{¶22} Here, the facts that supported the conclusions of the referee, the Board and 

the trial court, were various instances of misconduct by Lanzo, which required repeated 

disciplinary and corrective actions by the Board. There were four prior incidents involving 

Lanzo which resulted in discipline prior to the incident which triggered these proceedings. 

{¶23} On September 6, 2005, Lanzo was reprimanded for misconduct and 

disrespect at a school function, specifically, raising his voice to a student's grandparent. 

On March 13, 2006, Lanzo was reprimanded for misconduct, disrespect and 

insubordination, specifically, leaving his classroom unattended and interrupting a private 

meeting between the principal, a teacher and a parent, and leaving his classroom 

unattended a second time and twice interrupting another teacher's class. From March 17 
- 8 - 

to May 1, 2006 Lanzo was placed on administrative leave, after voicing a threat to his 

union president that Lanzo would slash the principal's tires. From August 30 through 

September 28, 2006, Lanzo was placed on unpaid administrative leave, after Lanzo had 

equivocated in his explanation to the principal regarding a June 7, 2006 incident where he 

had left his classroom unattended and an altercation between students had ensued. 

{¶24} The final incident occurred on November 27, 2007. Lanzo used 

unreasonable physical force to discipline another teacher's fifth-grade student for talking 

during class, specifically by taking the student by the arm, forcing him to stand, pulling 

him to the front of the room, and physically moving the student's head toward the video 

being viewed in the classroom. During this investigation it came to light that also during 

the 2007-2008 school year, Lanzo inappropriately touched his fifth-grade students on 

several occasions, specifically by twisting their hair or pulling their ears. 

{¶25} Lanzo argues that his actions during the final incident did not directly 

contravene school policy because they constituted a necessary corrective measure to 

quell a disruptive student. Lanzo contends that the Board's termination of his contract in 

response to this incident sends the message that teachers are not permitted to take the 

necessary steps to maintain order in the classroom, and that such a message will lead to 

unproductive and unsafe learning environments. 

{¶26} The referee found that Lanzo's conduct during the 2007-2008 school year 

did in fact contravene the school's policy against corporal punishment and inappropriate 

touching. Even if Lanzo's actions on November 27, 2007 did not meet the traditional 

definition of corporal punishment, they nonetheless contravened the school's policy that 

any discipline imposed must be proportionate to the student's misconduct. Moreover, the 

Board's decision to terminate Lanzo's contract was not based solely on his misconduct 

during the 2007-2008 school year, but also in consideration of his cumulative history of 

repeated misconduct while employed by the Board. 

{¶27} Although Lanzo attempts to limit the focus of this appeal to his final acts of 

misconduct, the Board rightfully considered Lanzo’s performance throughout the duration 

of his employment. Unlike the teacher in Oleske, who was terminated even in light of her 
- 9 - 

spotless twenty year record, Lanzo was repeatedly reprimanded for his misconduct 

throughout his five years of teaching. In accordance with Beranek and Yarian, even if 

some of Lanzo’s behavior did not violate an explicit rule or regulation of the school, it 

nonetheless constituted good and just cause for termination. Moreover, his physical 

contact with students did violate school policies against corporal punishment and 

inappropriate touching, and thus also good and just cause for termination, unlike the 

teacher in James. 

{¶28} Consideration of Lanzo's history of repeated insubordination and classroommanagement deficiencies, along with his final acts of misconduct, reasonably lead to the 

conclusion that there was good and just cause for terminating Lanzo's teaching contract. 

The trial court therefore did not abuse its discretion in upholding the Board's decision. 

Accordingly, Lanzo's sole assignment of error is meritless, and the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

Vukovich, P.J., concurs. 

Waite, J., concurs.