[Cite as State ex rel. Lane v. Pickerington, 130 Ohio St.3d 225, 2011-Ohio-5454.] 

[THE STATE EX REL.] LANE, APPELLANT, v. CITY OF 

PICKERINGTON ET AL., APPELLEES. 

[Cite as State ex rel. Lane v. Pickerington, 

130 Ohio St.3d 225, 2011-Ohio-5454.] 

Public employees—Mandamus sought to compel municipal personnel appeals 

board to conduct hearing—Letter from city law director insufficient to 

constitute appealable order of board—Remand to court of appeals. 

(No. 2011-0922—Submitted October 18, 2011—Decided October 27, 2011.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Fairfield County, 

No. 10-CA-14, 2011-Ohio-1908. 

__________________ 

Per Curiam.

{¶ 1} This is an appeal from a judgment entered by the court of appeals 

denying a writ of mandamus to compel a city and its personnel appeals board to 

conduct a hearing and make a determination on the merits of a municipal 

employee’s appeal of his removal from employment. Because the court of 

appeals erred in holding that the employee had an adequate remedy by appeal to 

the common pleas court to raise his claims when there was no evidence that the 

board had issued any decision, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals 

and remand the cause to the court for further proceedings consistent with this 

opinion. 

Facts

{¶ 2} Appellant, Paul Lane, was employed by the city of Pickerington, 

Ohio, from August 30, 1999, until November 2, 2009. Lane worked for the city 

as a construction-inspection supervisor until November 2005 and then as an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

2

inspections administrator until November 2, 2009. According to Lane, he was in 

the classified civil service during his employment with Pickerington. 

{¶ 3} Effective November 2, 2009, following a hearing, the interim city 

manager terminated Lane’s employment for disciplinary reasons. By letter dated 

November 5, 2009, the interim city manager issued a notice that was handdelivered to Lane by the city’s personnel director notifying him of his termination 

from employment for violating Section 7.14 of the city’s Personnel Policy and 

Procedures Manual, Use of Technology, Section 2. 

{¶ 4} On November 17, 2009, Lane submitted to the city’s personnel 

director a request for a hearing before appellee Pickerington Personnel Appeals 

Board regarding his termination from employment. Section 9.03 of the 

Pickerington City Charter specifies, “The Personnel Appeals Board shall be 

established to hear appeals whenever any official or employee in the competitive 

service feels aggrieved by any action of the City Manager or is suspended, 

reduced, or removed and requests such hearing.” 

{¶ 5} By letter dated December 1, 2009, Pickerington Law Director 

Phillip K. Hartmann responded to Lane’s request for a hearing before the 

personnel appeals board by rejecting the request: 

{¶ 6} “This letter is in response to your November 17, 2009 request for a 

hearing before the Personnel Appeals Board ‘PAB.’ Pursuant to Charter Sections 

9.02 and 9.03, the PAB rules and the Codified Ordinances of the City, the position 

you previously held as the Director of the Building Department is an exempt 

position and therefore considered ‘unclassified.’ The PAB does not have 

jurisdiction to hear an appeal from an unclassified employee regarding dismissal. 

{¶ 7} “Therefore, the City respectfully declines your request for a 

hearing before the PAB. If you should have any questions or concerns, please do 

not hesitate to contact me.” 
January Term, 2011 

3

{¶ 8} Several months later, in March 2010, Lane filed a complaint in the 

Court of Appeals for Fairfield County for a writ of mandamus to compel 

appellees, Pickerington and its personnel appeals board, to conduct a hearing and 

issue a determination on the merits of his appeal, reinstate him to the position of 

inspections administrator, and award back pay and corresponding employment 

benefits. After the parties submitted motions for summary judgment, on April 13, 

2011, the court of appeals granted appellees’ motion and denied the writ. 

{¶ 9} This cause is now before the court on Lane’s appeal as of right. 

Legal Analysis

{¶ 10} Lane requested a writ of mandamus to compel Pickerington and 

the Pickerington Personnel Appeals Board to, inter alia, conduct a hearing on his 

appeal from his discharge from employment and to issue a determination on the 

merits. To be entitled to the writ, Lane must establish a clear legal right to the 

requested relief, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of appellees to 

provide it, and the lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law. 

State ex rel. Am. Subcontractors Assn., Inc. v. Ohio State Univ., 129 Ohio St.3d 

111, 2011-Ohio-2881, 950 N.E.2d 535, ¶ 20. 

{¶ 11} The court of appeals denied the writ because it determined that 

Lane had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by administrative 

appeal to the common pleas court from the personnel appeals board’s decision. 

“Mandamus will not issue when the relators have an adequate remedy in the 

ordinary course of law.” State ex rel. Voleck v. Powhatan Point, 127 Ohio St.3d 

299, 2010-Ohio-5679, 939 N.E.2d 819, ¶ 7; R.C. 2731.05. “An administrative 

appeal generally constitutes an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law that 

precludes a writ of mandamus.” State ex rel. Natl. Emps. Network Alliance, Inc. 

v. Ryan, 125 Ohio St.3d 11, 2010-Ohio-578, 925 N.E.2d 947, ¶ 1. 

{¶ 12} Pursuant to R.C. 124.34, “an employee who is being removed may 

appeal to the appropriate civil service commission and, if not satisfied, may then 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

4

appeal to the Court of Common Pleas * * * in accordance with R.C. Chapter 

119.” State ex rel. Henderson v. Maple Hts. Civ. Serv. Comm. (1980), 63 Ohio 

St.2d 39, 41, 17 O.O.3d 24, 406 N.E.2d 1105; see R.C. 124.34(B) (“In cases of 

removal or reduction in pay for disciplinary reasons, either the appointing 

authority or the officer or employee may appeal from the decision of the state 

personnel board of review or the [municipal civil service] commission, and any 

such appeal shall be to the court of common pleas of the county in which the 

appointing authority is located, or to the court of common pleas of Franklin 

county, as provided by section 119.12 of the Revised Code”). 

{¶ 13} The court of appeals relied on our decision in Henderson to deny 

Lane’s request for extraordinary relief in mandamus. In Henderson, a nonresident 

employee of the city of Maple Heights appealed to the city’s civil service 

commission from the city’s termination of his employment for his failure to 

comply with the city charter’s residency requirement. The civil service 

commission, through its legal counsel, denied the employee’s request for a 

hearing because his appeal did not fall within the commission’s jurisdiction. The 

employee then sought a writ of mandamus to compel the civil service commission 

to conduct a hearing to allow him to contest his termination from employment and 

to direct the mayor and transit director to reinstate him to his former position with 

back pay. 

{¶ 14} The court of appeals dismissed the mandamus action because the 

employee had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and we affirmed 

the dismissal on that basis: 

{¶ 15} “A denial by the respondent civil service commission of 

jurisdiction of this controversy represented a final appealable order. When the 

commission refused relator’s request for a hearing, relator should have appealed 

to the Court of Common Pleas. Having failed to do so, and, thereby having failed 

to pursue his appellate remedies in the ordinary course of law, he cannot now 
January Term, 2011 

5

collaterally attack this jurisdictional determination.” Henderson, 63 Ohio St.2d at 

41, 17 O.O.3d 24, 406 N.E.2d 1105. 

{¶ 16} In Henderson, however, there was no question that the civil service 

commission itself refused to hear the discharged employee’s appeal and that the 

commission’s legal counsel merely communicated the commission’s own 

decision to the employee. 

{¶ 17} By contrast, there is no evidence here that the Pickerington 

Personnel Appeals Board issued a final, appealable order that the board lacked 

jurisdiction over Lane’s request for a hearing on his termination from 

employment with the city. The letter from the law director to Lane did not even 

state that it was being issued on behalf of the board—instead, the law director 

represented that “the City” was denying his request, and not the board. 

{¶ 18} Nor is there any authority cited by appellees that would authorize 

the law director to issue a decision on behalf of the personnel appeals board. See 

Pickerington City Charter, Section 5.04 (“The Law Director shall be the legal 

adviser of and attorney and counsel for the City and for all officials, boards, 

commissions, and departments thereof in all matters relating to their official 

duties; and shall, when requested, give legal opinions in writing”); see also FOE 

Aerie 2177 Greenville v. Ohio State Liquor Control Comm., Franklin App. No. 

01AP-1330, 2002-Ohio-4441, ¶ 23 (no evidence that the Liquor Control 

Commission had granted authority to the county prosecuting attorney to act on its 

behalf with respect to its statutory responsibilities); Fairview Park Fire Fighters 

Assn. v. Fairview Park (July 22, 1982), Cuyahoga App. No. 44662, 1982 WL 

2489 (the city law director had no duty to enter into a consent agreement on 

behalf of the city that fixed wages, which was a power vested in the city council). 

{¶ 19} Therefore, in the absence of a final, appealable order by the 

Pickerington Personnel Appeals Board on Lane’s request for a hearing, he did not 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

6

have an adequate remedy by way of administrative appeal to raise his claims. 

Consequently, the court of appeals erred in denying the writ on this basis. 

Conclusion

{¶ 20} Based on the foregoing, we reverse the judgment of the court of 

appeals denying the writ of mandamus, and we remand the cause for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the court of appeals will 

determine whether Lane can establish his entitlement to a writ of mandamus to 

compel the city and its personnel appeals board to conduct a hearing and make a 

determination on the merits of an appeal. 

Judgment reversed 

and cause remanded. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, CUPP, and MCGEE 

BROWN, JJ., concur. 

O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 

LANZINGER, J., dissents and would affirm on the basis of State ex rel. 

Henderson v. Maple Hts. Civ. Serv. Comm. (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 39, 17 O.O.3d 

24, 406 N.E.2d 1105. 

__________________ 

 Moses Law Offices, L.L.C., and Michael A. Moses, for appellant. 

 Schottenstein, Zox & Dunn Co., L.P.A., Philip K. Hartmann, Paul L. 

Bittner, and Aaron L. Granger, for appellees. 

______________________