[Cite as Crawford v. Ohio Dept. of Edn., 2009-Ohio-7062.]

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us

ANITA CRAWFORD 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2007-01657 

Judge J. Craig Wright 

DECISION

{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action alleging claims of defamation, tortious 

interference with her employment relationship, negligence, and bad faith.1

 The issues 

of liability and damages were bifurcated and the case proceeded to trial on the issue of 

liability. 

{¶ 2} Plaintiff’s claims arise as a result of the termination of her employment 

with the Cleveland Municipal School District (CMSD) after more than 25 years of 

service. Plaintiff contends that she was fired because she filed a “buffered” (inflated) 

annual school-bus transportation report based upon erroneous advice received from 

Peter Japikse, an employee of defendant, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). 

The facts that form the basis of plaintiff’s claims are as follows. 

{¶ 3} In accordance with state law, Ohio school districts that incur student 

 1

By entry dated May 23, 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff’s claim of defamation. 
transportation costs are entitled to receive funding from ODE.2

 In order to obtain such 

funding, the district must submit an annual “T-1” report reflecting the number of students 

transported and the distance traveled on each route. ODE determines the level of 

funding that the district will receive based upon the information provided in the T-1 

reports. CMSD is one of the largest school districts in Ohio, providing transportation to 

more than 20,000 students, and the funding it receives can surpass $10 million per 

year. 

{¶ 4} The T-1 data at issue in this case was prepared for the 2004-2005 school 

period. On November 4, 2004, CMSD timely filed its report. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20.) 

Shortly thereafter, the district became the subject of intense media scrutiny, CMSD was 

criticized for the manner in which it reported student ridership. It was alleged that the 

district had overstated the number of students it transported and had thus obtained 

more state funding than it was entitled to receive. 

{¶ 5} The media attention brought to light a conflict between ODE and CMSD 

regarding interpretation of reporting requirements. Central to the controversy was a 

portion of the general instructions included in the T-1 report which provided that: “[t]he 

data for this report shall be the average number of pupils enrolled and regularly 

transported during the first full week of October that school is in session. Students shall 

be counted only once each day, regardless of how many vehicles they ride. It is 

recommended that students be counted on their first conveyance.” (Emphasis added.) 

As a result of the media focus, it became widely known that CMSD had for many years 

based its reports upon the number of eligible bus riders, whereas ODE required that 

actual headcounts of riders be conducted. 

{¶ 6} Subsequent to the unfavorable publicity, CMSD was directed to conduct a 

five-day actual headcount of bus riders, and to file an amended T-1 report reflecting a 

daily average of the week-long count tallied for each of its bus routes. At the time, 

plaintiff was employed as Director of Transportation for CMSD, a position that she had 

held since August 2004.3

 In that capacity, plaintiff was responsible for overseeing the 

 2

It is undisputed that the pertinent requirements are set forth in R.C. Chapters 3327 and 3317, 

and Ohio Adm.Code 3301-83.

3

Plaintiff began her employment with CMSD in 1979; she started as a security officer and 

progressed through the ranks from that position.
preparation and submission of T-1 reports. Lou Marcellino,4

 plaintiff’s transportationdepartment manager, prepared the November 4, 2004 report. Marcellino prepared the 

report in the same manner that he and the district had traditionally utilized; that is, he 

relied upon the district’s “Edulog” database to obtain a count of all students eligible for 

transportation. The Edulog system was a bus-routing program that compiled statistics of 

students eligible for transportation, but did not track whether those students actually 

rode the buses. CMSD personnel insisted that its reporting method was justified by 

both the “enrolled and regularly transported” T-1 instruction language, and its duty to 

provide a sufficient number of buses to transport all students who were eligible for, and 

in need of, transportation. 

{¶ 7} At the time that the controversy arose, Japikse was employed as ODE’s 

Associate Director of Pupil Transportation, a position he had held since 2000.5 One of 

Japikse’s duties, along with his staff, was to collect and analyze the T-1 report data from 

the school districts. In conjunction with ODE area coordinators, he and his staff also 

provided assistance to school districts on transportation-related issues. In addition, 

ODE provided training sessions as to the method for preparing T-1 reports. Japikse 

insisted that, prior to the media controversy, he had never had reason to question 

CMSD’s T-1 reports nor was he aware of any confusion among Ohio’s school districts 

concerning reporting requirements. According to Japikse, the T-1 reporting instructions 

referencing “the average number of pupils,” and the directions that students “be counted 

only once each day”; and that students “be counted on their first conveyance,” clearly 

communicated that an actual headcount was required. 

{¶ 8} In the process of preparing the amended report, several CMSD 

employees, including plaintiff, had telephone conversations with Japikse. Two of those 

employees, Omega Brown, Director of Human Resources, and Alan Seifullah, Director 

of Communications, jointly placed a call to Japikse over a speaker-phone. Brown 

explained to Japikse that CMSD had never conducted headcounts and that the district 

wanted to ensure that it complied with ODE requirements. Brown also questioned how 

the district was to account for students who were eligible to ride, but who were not using 

 4

Marcellino was employed by CMSD and participated in completion of T-1 reports from 1987 up 

to the date of the reports at issue. His employment was also terminated. 

5

Japikse’s entire career, which began in 1979, was in school district transportation. 
the bus transportation at the time of the count. According to Brown and Seifullah, it was 

during this conversation that the concept of a count buffer originated. Specifically, it 

was alleged that Japikse responded to Brown’s inquiry by way of an analogy concerning 

teachers setting up their classrooms to accommodate all their assigned students, but 

also including a few extra seats for students who may join their classes later. Brown 

interpreted that information as authorizing the addition of a buffer to the actual 

headcounts that would be reported in the amended T-1. 

{¶ 9} Subsequent to the Brown/Seifullah telephone call, plaintiff had a 

conversation with Japikse. Because Brown had instructed her to use a count buffer, 

plaintiff raised the issue with Japikse. She specifically questioned whether the use of a 

buffer was permitted inasmuch as it was not referenced in the T-1 instructions. Plaintiff 

contends that Japikse responded by way of the same classroom analogy that he had 

related to Brown and Seifullah. Plaintiff also interpreted her conversation with Japikse 

as authorizing a buffered headcount. On January 31, 2005, CMSD filed its amended T1 report including a four-student buffer to the average daily headcounts for each bus 

route. (Defendant’s Exhibit H.) 

{¶ 10} CMSD thereafter became the focus of renewed media attention. This time, 

the district was accused of intentionally submitting an inflated report in order to defraud 

ODE and the general tax-paying public. A particularly negative news report came out 

on February 8, 2005. That same day, plaintiff sent an e-mail to Japikse explaining that 

she believed that the T-1 report numbers were correct, but that certain students had 

been reported incorrectly in various categories. She stated that: “I do believe that I 

need to inform you that I need to make corrections to our report.” (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.) 

{¶ 11} The following day, Dr. Barbara Byrd-Bennett, CMSD’s Chief Executive 

Officer, wrote to the Ohio Superintendent of Public Instruction, Dr. Susan Tave-Zelman, 

both to address her concerns over the matter and to publicly affirm that the district 

would work with ODE to prepare an accurate T-1 report. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.) 

Additionally, Dr. Byrd-Bennett met with plaintiff and questioned her as to why a buffer 

had been added to the T-1 report. After plaintiff related that the idea had originated with 

and been confirmed by Japikse, Dr. Bryd-Bennet contacted Japikse to verify plaintiff’s 

explanation of the matter. According to Dr. Byrd-Bennett, Japikse denied ever having 
had a conversation with plaintiff. On February 11, 2005, plaintiff was notified that her 

employment was terminated, effective immediately. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 4.) 

{¶ 12} CMSD and ODE employees then worked together to create a third T-1 

report for the 2004-2005 school year. Under the supervision of ODE personnel, CMSD 

counted the students who actually rode on the buses and submitted those numbers, 

without a buffer, on February 25, 2005. (Defendant’s Exhibit I.) In the following months, 

both ODE and CMSD conducted comprehensive investigations into the circumstances 

that gave rise to the T-1 reporting controversy. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 11-12.) Ultimately, 

plaintiff was cleared of any wrongdoing. In January 2006 plaintiff was reinstated to 

employment, albeit to a different position, and received her full back-pay. 

{¶ 13} During her 11-month period of unemployment, plaintiff accessed her 

retirement benefits in order to replace her lost income. She claims in general that 

defendant is liable “for damages arising from [its] unlawful acts which resulted in 

plaintiff’s being discharged and losing pension benefits.” She specifically maintains that 

Japikse interfered with her business relationship with CMSD, that he was negligent in 

providing guidance regarding ODE procedures and the interpretation of T-1 reporting 

instructions, and that he acted in bad faith. 

{¶ 14} Upon review of the documentary evidence, the testimony, and the 

arguments of counsel, the court finds for the following reasons that plaintiff failed to 

prove her claims by a preponderance of the evidence.6

{¶ 15} Tortious interference with a business relationship occurs when “a person, 

without privilege to do so, induces or otherwise purposefully causes a third person not 

to enter into or continue a business relationship with another.” Diamond Wine & Spirits 

v. Dayton Heidelberg Distributing Co., Inc., 148 Ohio App.3d 596, 2002-Ohio-3932, ¶23, 

citing A & B-Abell Elevator Co. v. Columbus/Cent. Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council, 

 6

At the close of the proceedings, the court announced that it was inclined to find in favor of 

plaintiff, but expressed that it questioned whether there was any master-servant relationship between 

CMSD and ODE to support such a conclusion. The parties were directed to address the issue in their 

post-trial findings of fact and conclusions of law. The parties stated in those filings that they are in 

agreement that no such relationship exists inasmuch as school districts are governed by school boards, 

and function as independent political subdivisions, not as agents of ODE. As such, ODE had no authority 

to direct CMSD with regard to hiring or firing decisions. See, generally, R.C. Chapters 3311 and 3313; 

Avon Lake City School Dist. v. Limbach (1988), 35 Ohio St.3d 118, 122; Springfield Local Bd of Educ. v. 

Summit County Bd of Revision (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 493, 496; R.C. 2744.01(F). Accordingly, the issue 

is not further addressed in this decision. 
73 Ohio St.3d 1, 1995-Ohio-66. The elements of the tort are “(1) a business 

relationship; (2) the tortfeasor’s knowledge thereof; (3) an intentional interference 

causing a breach or termination of the relationship; and (4) damages resulting 

therefrom.” Id. citing Geo-Pro Servs. Inc. v. Solar Testing Laboratories, Inc. (2001), 145 

Ohio App.3d 514, 525. “‘Such interference must be intentional because Ohio does not 

recognize negligent interference with a business relationship.’” Id. quoting Bauer v. 

Commercial Aluminum Cookware Co. (2000), 140 Ohio App.3d 193, 199. 

{¶ 16} Plaintiff contends that Japikse knew or should have known that plaintiff’s 

employment was in jeopardy when he spoke to Dr. Byrd-Bennett on February 9, 2005. 

She contends that he intentionally interfered with her employment relationship in that he 

knowingly misrepresented that he had not spoken with plaintiff or that he had authorized 

the use of a count buffer. 

{¶ 17} The court heard the testimony of plaintiff, Brown, Seifullah, Dr. ByrdBennett, and Japikse regarding circumstances that led to plaintiff’s termination. There 

was no testimony to support the contention that Dr. Byrd-Bennett informed Japikse that 

plaintiff’s job was in jeopardy when she spoke with him on February 9, 2005. Plaintiff as 

much as admits the same in claiming only that Japikse “knew or should have known.” 

However, the testimony also fails to support that contention. The most critical media 

account of the CMSD reporting strategy had aired the day prior to the call. Dr. ByrdBennett testified that she wanted to assure Japikse that she took the allegations very 

seriously, and that she “would get to the bottom of” what was occurring or not occurring. 

She did not relate to him that she was considering the termination of any person’s 

employment. In light of the efforts of both ODE and CMSD to address the many 

concerns generated by the media scrutiny, it is reasonable to believe that the question 

of one individual’s continued employment was not the focus of attention for either Dr. 

Byrd-Bennett or Japikse during the conversation. 

{¶ 18} With respect to Japikse’s denial of his conversation with plaintiff, the 

testimony established that on the day that he spoke with plaintiff he had attempted to 

contact Brown regarding CMSD’s preparation of the amended T-1 report; however, his 

call was routed to plaintiff. There was no evidence that Japikse and plaintiff had ever 

had any previous contact. Plaintiff testified that when she answered the call, Japikse 
told her that he was calling in response to media questions concerning the amended T1 report, and that he asked whether the report was being prepared in accordance with 

the actual headcount requirement. At some point in that conversation, plaintiff raised 

the issue of using a buffer. Based upon the totality of the testimony offered on this 

issue, the court concludes that, if Japikse denied having a conversation with plaintiff, it 

was more likely than not due to his failure to recall a conversation with a person he did 

not ordinarily communicate with, or because it was not the conversation that he had 

intended to have when he made the call. In short, the court is persuaded that Japikse 

did not purposefully misrepresent that he had not had a conversation with plaintiff. 

{¶ 19} Regarding the allegations that Japikse authorized the use of a buffer by 

way of his classroom analogy, the totality of the evidence makes clear that Japikse 

made that analogy in response to questions regarding the routing of buses, and not the 

required headcounts of student riders. The question of routing became an issue 

because CMSD had suffered a cut of $10 million from its transportation budget. 

(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.) The cuts resulted in an extensive overhaul and revamping of 

CMSD’s transportation operations, including the laying off of bus drivers and reductions 

in the number of routes covered. The evidence established that CMSD staff asked 

Japikse whether it should route each bus so that it was filled to maximum capacity, that 

Japikse advised that maximum capacity was not the requirement but that, when routing 

buses, extra seats could be left open for students who did not normally ride, or who 

might enter the district mid-year. Japikse testified adamantly and quite credibly that 

ODE had never used the term “buffer” or advised any school district to inflate its 

averaged daily headcount of bus riders. Inasmuch as Japikse’s employer was 

responsible for allocating tax dollars to school districts, it defies logic that he or his staff 

would advise that bus ridership be artificially inflated. In sum, the court is convinced 

that there was no intentional misrepresentation of facts or interference with plaintiff’s 

business relationship on the part of Japikse. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim of intentional 

interference with her business relationship must fail. 

{¶ 20} Plaintiff has also asserted that defendant, through Japikse, was negligent 

in providing advice and instruction, which resulted in the loss of her employment and 

retirement benefits. However, “'[t]he well-established general rule is that a plaintiff who 
has suffered only economic loss due to another’s negligence has not been injured in a 

manner which is legally cognizable or compensable.'” Chemtrol Adhesives, Inc. v. Am. 

Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. (1989), 42 Ohio St.3d 40, 45, quoting Nebraska Innkeepers, Inc. v. 

Pittsburgh-Des Moines Corp. (1984), 345 N.W.2d 124, 126. (Additional citation 

omitted.) See also Floor Craft Floor Covering, Inc. v. Parma Community General Hosp. 

Ass’n (1990), 54 Ohio St.3d 1, 3. “Thus, where only economic losses are asserted, 

damages may be recovered only in contract; there can be no recovery in negligence 

due to the lack of physical harm to persons and tangible things.” RWP, Inc. v. Fabrizi 

Trucking & Paving Co., Cuyahoga App. No. 87382, 2006-Ohio-5014, ¶21. (Additional 

citations omitted.) Accordingly, plaintiff’s negligence claim must fail. 

{¶ 21} Finally, plaintiff asserts a generic claim of “bad faith.” The court is aware 

of no statutory or case law authority, nor has plaintiff cited any, that supports a claim of 

this nature absent a breach of a duty established by a particular contractual relationship. 

See Motorists Mutual Ins. Co. v. Said, 63 Ohio St.3d 690, 695, 1992-Ohio-94. 

Therefore, this claim also must fail. For the foregoing reasons, judgment shall be 

rendered in favor of defendant. 

Court of Claims of Ohio

The Ohio Judicial Center 

65 South Front Street, Third Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

614.387.9800 or 1.800.824.8263 

www.cco.state.oh.us 

ANITA CRAWFORD 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2007-01657 
Judge J. Craig Wright 

JUDGMENT ENTRY

This case was tried to the court on the issue of liability. The court has 

considered the evidence and, for the reasons set forth in the decision filed concurrently 

herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of defendant. Court costs are assessed against 

plaintiff. The clerk shall serve upon all parties notice of this judgment and its date of 

entry upon the journal. 

 _____________________________________ 

 J. CRAIG WRIGHT 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Christopher P. Conomy 

Assistant Attorney General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

Robert E. Davis 

55 Public Square 

1500 Illuminating Building 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113-1998 

LH/cmd

Filed December 14, 2009 

To S.C. reporter December 29, 2009