[Cite as Jeffers v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 2010-Ohio-2655.]

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

STACIE A. JEFFERS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2006-04199 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 

DECISION

{¶ 1} On April 19, 2010, this case was tried to the court on the issue of 

damages. In its liability decision issued on November 20, 2009, the court found that 

defendant, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), was liable for breach of 

a settlement agreement into which it entered with plaintiff who was formerly a patrol 

officer in ODNR’s Division of Watercraft. 

{¶ 2} Plaintiff was removed from her employment prior to the expiration of her 

one-year probationary period. The parties’ settlement agreement provided that ODNR 

would purge the probationary removal information from plaintiff’s personnel files and 

replace it with information reflecting that she had voluntarily resigned; in exchange, 

plaintiff agreed not to pursue her claims against ODNR of wrongful termination, violation 

of public policy, violation of certain terms of her Fraternal Order of Police contract, and 

her claims of sexual harassment and assault and battery. 

{¶ 3} Subsequent to the settlement agreement, plaintiff applied for state 

employment but learned that the information that she was a probationary removal was 
available to prospective employers. Plaintiff has consistently maintained that the 

probationary removal designation reflects negatively upon her and significantly 

diminishes her opportunities for state employment. Plaintiff discovered that, in addition 

to the probationary removal documentation that had been contained in her personnel 

files at ODNR and the Division of Watercraft, the information was also posted on the 

Ohio Department of Administrative Services (ODAS) web site then known as EHOC 

(Employee History on Computer). Further, the EHOC information was readily available 

to state agencies, and at least one prospective state employer relied upon it rather than 

consulting ODNR. 

{¶ 4} In its liability determination, the court found that the language of the 

parties’ settlement agreement referred only to plaintiff’s personnel file with ODNR, which 

included its subdivision, the Department of Watercraft, but that the agreement did not 

contemplate the computer data contained in the EHOC system. The court concluded 

that ODNR did not breach its agreement with plaintiff in failing to initiate deletion of the 

probationary removal designation from ODAS/EHOC records, but that it had committed 

a breach in failing to purge the offending records from its own files. 

{¶ 5} Following the liability determination, ODNR moved for summary judgment 

on the issue of damages. ODNR argued that plaintiff would be unable to prove 

damages because it had been established at trial that no employer had ever viewed 

plaintiff’s unpurged ODNR file. In response, plaintiff conceded that she could not prove 

that she was refused employment as a result of ODNR’s breach; however, she asserted 

that she was entitled to compensation for the attorney fees and other expenses that she 

incurred to pursue this action in effort to enforce the settlement agreement. The court 

agreed and overruled the motion for summary judgment. Thus, the only issue 

addressed at the damages trial was plaintiff’s attorney fees and the expenses that she 

incurred to pursue this action. 

{¶ 6} “A party seeking an award of attorney fees has the burden of 

demonstrating the reasonable value of such services.” DeHoff v. Veterinary Hospital 

Operations of Cent. Ohio, Inc., Franklin App. No. 02AP-454, 2003-Ohio-3334, ¶145. 

The court’s award of attorney fees must be reasonable and supported by evidence in 

the record. Citibank v. Wood, 177 Ohio App.3d 103, 2008-Ohio-2877. When granting 
such an award, the Supreme Court of Ohio requires that the trial court explain how it 

determined its amount. Bittner v. Tri-County Toyota, Inc. (1991), 58 Ohio St.3d 143, 

145-146. Typical factors to be considered in calculating the award are those set forth in 

DR 2-106(B). Id. “These factors are: the time and labor involved in maintaining the 

litigation; the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved; the professional skill 

required to perform the necessary legal services; the attorney’s inability to accept other 

cases; the fee customarily charged; the amount involved and the results obtained; any 

necessary time limitations; the nature and length of the attorney/client relationship; the 

experience, reputation, and ability of the attorney; and whether the fee is fixed or 

contingent. All factors may not be applicable in all cases * * *.” Id. See also 

Stonehenge Land Co. v. Beazer Homes Invests., L.L.C., 177 Ohio App.3d 7, 2008-

Ohio-148. 

{¶ 7} Plaintiff is seeking compensation for attorney fees and expenses in the 

amount of $15, 540, representing 76 hours for attorney’s services at the rate of $200 

per hour, and expenses in the amount of $742. Defendant’s counsel stated at trial that 

defendant does not contest the reasonableness of the hourly rate. However, defendant 

questioned the length of time that plaintiff’s counsel spent on certain tasks listed on the 

fee statement. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.) Defendant’s counsel also argued that summary 

judgment was granted on four of plaintiff’s seven causes of action and that, in his view, 

plaintiff’s counsel spent an inordinate amount of time on the remaining claims, and 

particularly on his efforts to prove that ODNR had a duty to delete the information 

contained on the ODAS/EHOC computer system. Defendant’s counsel questioned 

plaintiff whether she felt the amount of time listed in the fee statement for various tasks 

was reasonable. Defendant did not call any witnesses in support of its argument. 

{¶ 8} Upon review, the court finds both the hourly fee and the amount of time 

spent on the case to be reasonable. Plaintiff testified that she did not question the fees 

charged, that she trusted her counsel, that she did not believe that he would overcharge 

her, and that she felt that the amount of time that he spent in attempting to enforce her 

settlement agreement was reasonable. Considering the relevant factors as set forth in 

Bittner, supra, the court notes that plaintiff’s counsel responded to two motions for 

summary judgment, prepared for both a liability and a damages trial, and participated in 
all proceedings associated with both trials. Although the issues involved were not novel 

or difficult, and plaintiff received only a partial judgment in her favor, it was always her 

contention that the EHOC records were a part of her ODNR personnel file and counsel 

could not have predicted how the court would rule on that issue. The court further notes 

that plaintiff’s counsel in this action was not the counsel involved in negotiating or 

drafting the settlement agreement. Thus, notwithstanding the outcome, the court finds 

that the amount of time spent in attempting to prove that ODNR broke the agreement by 

failing to remove the ODAS/EHOC information was reasonable. The contract for legal 

services submitted at trial states that counsel’s total final fee was fixed at $15,000, not 

including costs and expenses. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.) Additionally, plaintiff presented 

unrefuted evidence of costs of $340 and $402 she incurred for trial transcripts. 

(Plaintiff’s Exhibits 4 and 5.) 

{¶ 9} Accordingly, the court finds that plaintiff has proven, by a preponderance 

of the evidence, that she is entitled to compensation for reasonable attorney fees and 

expenses totaling $15,742. Therefore, judgment shall be entered in the amount of 

$15,767, which includes reimbursement for this court’s $25 filing fee. 

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 

STACIE A. JEFFERS 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2006-04199 

Judge Joseph T. Clark 
JUDGMENT ENTRY

 This case was tried to the court on the issue of plaintiff’s damages. The court 

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

concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiff in the amount of 

$15,767, which includes the $25 filing fee. Court costs are assessed against defendant. 

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

the journal. 

 _____________________________________ 

 JOSEPH T. CLARK 

 Judge 

cc: 

 

Eric A. Walker 

Peter E. DeMarco 

Assistant Attorneys General 

150 East Gay Street, 18th Floor 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130 

W. Jeffrey Moore 

326 South High Street, Suite 300 

Columbus, Ohio 43215-4570 

LH/cmd

Filed May 28, 2010 

To S.C. reporter June 9, 2010