 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kittrells v. Perry9/5/1996
Plaintiff-appellant, Anona Kittrells ("Ms. Kittrells"), appeals from the trial court's ruling which granted summary judgment in favor of defendants-appellees, Stephen A. Perry, Director of the Ohio Department of Administrative Services ("Mr. Perry" individually), and Virgil E. Brown, Director of the Ohio Lottery Commission ("Mr. Brown" individually). Ms. Kittrells submits that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of appellees because genuine issues of material fact remain pending for litigation concerning allegations contained in her complaint. After a careful review of the record, the trial court's decision is affirmed for the reasons herein.
I.
The apposite facts are adduced from the record before this court. Ms. Kittrells was employed by the Ohio Lottery Commission, in the classified civil service since 1974. On October 2, 1992, she received a letter from Mr. Perry. Mr. Perry's letter informed Ms. Kittrells that a review of her position indicated that her employment as a Programmer Systems Manager I was erroneously placed in the classified civil service. The letter in part read:
We have reviewed your position description and your actual job duties and have concluded that you do in fact have authority to act on your director's behalf and/or that your position requires a high degree of personal loyalty, trust, confidence, reliance, and fidelity.
Consequently, the Ohio Department of Administrative Services changed the Programmer Systems Manager I position to an unclassified service position. A new personnel form was completed to reflect Ms. Kittrells unclassified civil service status as a Programer Systems Manager I.
Subsequently, Ms. Kittrells wrote a letter to the State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR"), seeking to appeal her reclassification. Ms. Kittrells' letter in part, read:
I disagree with your decision to place my position into unclassified service. I want this letter to be used as my official request to begin the appeal process! I would like to know how and why such a change in my classification could be justified? (Emphasis sic.)
The SPRB received Ms. Kittrells' letter and filed the letter as an appeal.
On October 20, 1992, an administrative law judge issued a report in which he advised the SPBR to dismiss Ms. Kittrells' appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The report, in part, read:
uch a determination must be precipitated by a diverse personnel action, such as a removal or reduction, which either accompanied or followed an appellant's change or 'correction' of status. Indeed, under R.C. 124.03, the State Personnel Board of Review does not have the authority to issue declaratory judgments determining the classified or unclassified status of an employee's position. There is no other statute in R.C. Chapter 124 which invests such jurisdiction in the State Personnel Board of Review.
The report also indicated that in the event Ms. Kittrells became adversely affected by a personnel action, Ms. Kittrells retained the right to file an appeal.
On November 18, 1982, the SPBR unanimously adopted the SPBR's administrative law judge's recommendation. The SPBR ordered that Ms. Kittrells' appeal be dismissed because of lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ms. Kittrells objected to the SPBR's ruling.
Pursuant to R.C. 119.12, Ms. Kittrells appealed the SPBR's dismissal of her appeal to the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. Kittrells v. Ohio Lottery Commission, et al. Case No. 92-CVF12-09832. The common pleas court affirmed the SPBR's dismissal of Ms. Kittrells' appeal.
Subsequently, Ms. Kitt
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Ohio Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|