Ohio Supreme Court Upholds School Board’s Authority to Suspend Administrative Contracts under Local Policy

Ohio Supreme Court Upholds School Board’s Authority to Suspend Administrative Contracts under Local Policy

by | May 14, 2025 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment, Special Education

On May 1, 2025, the Supreme Court of Ohio issued a decision in State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local School Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025-Ohio-1510, affirming the Seventh District Court of Appeals’ denial of a writ of mandamus sought by four former school administrators. The administrators had petitioned for reinstatement to their former positions with back pay and benefits, arguing that the school district’s administrative contract suspension policy (Policy 1540) was invalid under R.C. 3319.171. The Court held that the administrators failed to establish a clear legal right to the relief sought and clarified the limited scope of mandamus in the context of contract suspensions under local board policy.

The case arose after the Switzerland of Ohio Board of Education, acting on a recommendation from a new superintendent seeking to streamline an overstaffed central office, suspended the contracts of several administrators in 2021. The Board relied on Policy 1540, a policy adopted more than a decade earlier pursuant to R.C. 3319.171, which allows boards of education to develop local procedures for suspending administrative personnel contracts. The administrators challenged the validity of Policy 1540, arguing it failed to include two elements required by the statute: a method for determining the order of suspension and a restoration provision.

The Ohio Supreme Court rejected the administrators’ argument. It emphasized that while R.C. 3319.171 requires a locally adopted policy to contain certain elements, it does not create an enforceable right to reinstatement through mandamus. Unlike statutes that impose specific procedural safeguards for nonrenewal or termination of contracts (e.g., R.C. 3319.02 or R.C. 3319.111), R.C. 3319.171 is permissive in nature and vests discretion in local boards. The Court held that, absent a statutory right to reinstatement, mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle for relief.

Implications for School Districts:

This decision affirms the authority of local boards of education to suspend administrative contracts under their own policies, provided those policies were adopted under R.C. 3319.171. The Ruble decision provides a measure of protection against challenges that rely solely on technical arguments lacking clear statutory remedies.

 

 

Special Education Update: Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Section 504, Seeking to Block Protection of Gender Dysphoria

Special Education Update: Lawsuit Challenges Constitutionality of Section 504, Seeking to Block Protection of Gender Dysphoria

by | May 14, 2025 | Special Education

In September of 2024, 17 states filed a lawsuit challenging gender dysphoria as a protected disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U.S.C. § 794. However, the lawsuit challenged Section 504 broadly as unconstitutional and, at least initially, sought for the court to block enforcement of the law as a requested relief. The argument of the States in this lawsuit was that Section 504 does not come with its own funding for compliance; rather, the law places restrictions on states that they must adhere to in order to continue receiving any federal funding under any statute. The States further argued that this amounts to an unconstitutionally coercive condition on Federal spending. This type of law is unconstitutional because it gives the Federal government too much power over State actions and is contrary to federalism.

On February 20, 2025, the States walked back the argument on the constitutionality of Section 504 to the extent that it applies to the entirety of the law. The States clarified that they are not requesting the Court find Section 504 to be unconstitutional on its face, and the actual focus of the lawsuit was the addition of gender dysphoria as a recognized disability covered under the law.

Section 504 has broad-reaching effects for schools. Section 504 is a fundamental law that requires that schools do not discriminate against students with disabilities via accommodation in order to receive a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Currently, Section 504 could provide protections for students with gender dysphoria as students with disabilities that might require accommodations (i.e., allowing a student to use a private restroom). Of course, recent changes in Ohio laws that limit the use of multi-person restrooms and other facilities might limit the accommodations that are provided. These should still be taken into consideration for eligible students.

With the recent closure of seven U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights offices, including the Cleveland office, it is less clear whether and when any claims of discrimination under Section 504 might be investigated.

What does this mean for your District?

Currently, there is no telling how this will play out in the courts. Section 504 is still in effect, and nothing has changed in that regard. However, this is something to watch because while the states are no longer seeking to have Section 504 deemed unconstitutional, the argument to do so is spelled out for any future challenges.

 

 

 

Career Tech Corner: U.S. House of Representatives Pondering Funding Increase for Career Technical Education

Career Tech Corner: U.S. House of Representatives Pondering Funding Increase for Career Technical Education

by | May 14, 2025 | General, School Finance

Two U.S. Representatives, Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), began to circulate a Dear Colleague Letter (the “Letter”) throughout the House of Representatives that urged lawmakers to consider an increase in funding for Career Technical Education (CTE) in the 2026 budget.

According to the Letter, State grants under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act were funded at $1.44 billion in Fiscal Year (FY) 24 and 25. However, the Letter states that, when adjusted for inflation, these numbers are roughly half of the funding made in 1980. This concern comes as there is a growing recognition of CTEs and a high need for more skilled laborers. In fact, the Association for Career & Technical Education (ACTE) projects a deficit of 6.5 million skilled workers by 2030, highlighting the need for growth of CTE programs.

With that, President Trump signed an Order on February 3, 2025, that proclaimed February 2025 as Career and Technical Education Month. As part of that proclamation, President Trump stated, “[m]y Administration will invest in the next generation and expand access to high-quality career and technical education for all Americans. We will unleash the enormous potential of the American people and provide students and workers with the necessary skills training to ensure that our Nation dominates the 21st century.”

What does this mean for your CTC? There is clear recognition for the need for CTEs and the skilled laborer deficits that exist and will continue to grow without CTE growth. The commitment from the federal government to push this recognition further could lead to more students applying to your program. However, at this point, there is no guarantee that additional funding will follow. This also does not mean staffing applications will follow. The increased funding is worth keeping an eye on and potentially finding avenues to advocate for.

 

 

 

Federal Budget Proposal: Understanding the Potential Impacts on Education Funding

Federal Budget Proposal: Understanding the Potential Impacts on Education Funding

by | May 14, 2025 | School Finance

On May 2, the Trump Administration took its first formal step in the federal budget process by submitting its “skinny budget” proposal to Senator Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. This initial outline gives education leaders their first glimpse into potential funding changes that could affect school districts nationwide beginning this fall.

A skinny budget serves as a preliminary framework, communicating presidential priorities to Congress without offering comprehensive details. While significant as a statement of intent, it is important to remember that this document is non-binding. Constitutional authority for federal spending remains with Congress – a point Senator Collins herself emphasized when noting, “[u]ltimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”

The proposal arrives amid early signs of disagreement between Congressional Republicans and the White House. Senator Collins has already expressed “serious objections” after her initial review, suggesting a potentially complex negotiation process ahead.

The current proposal outlines a substantial $12 billion reduction in education funding – representing a 15% cut to discretionary education spending compared to the 2025 budget. For school districts already managing tight budgets, the specific reductions include:

• Title I: $4.5 billion reduction
• English Language Acquisition: $890 million reduction
• Adult Education: $729 million reduction
• Migrant Education: $428 million reduction
• Preschool Programs: $315 million reduction
• Department of Education Administration: $127 million reduction
• Office for Civil Rights: $49 million reduction

Not all programs would see cuts. IDEA funding would remain flat, while charter schools would receive a $60 million increase.

Beyond the raw numbers, the proposal introduces significant structural changes to how federal education dollars would be distributed. A new “K-12 Simplified Funding Program” would consolidate 18 separate competitive and formula grant programs into a single formula grant. Similarly, seven separate IDEA programs would be combined into one.

These consolidations would fundamentally alter how districts apply for and receive federal education funds, potentially creating both administrative challenges and opportunities during implementation.

School finance officers should be aware that the education budget represents only part of the potential fiscal impact on schools. The proposal exists within a broader context of competing priorities and fiscal constraints:

School nutrition programs administered by the USDA have already seen $1 billion in reductions, with further cuts possible if proposed SNAP eligibility restrictions are implemented. These changes could directly affect school meal programs and the students who depend on them.

Perhaps most concerning for districts serving students with disabilities, Medicaid – which currently provides $7.5 billion annually for school-based health services, including significant support for related services – faces potential cuts as the House Energy and Commerce Committee works to identify $880 billion in healthcare spending reductions.

Meanwhile, the administration has proposed increases to military and border security spending, while simultaneously working with Congressional Republicans to extend expiring tax cuts. The Congressional Budget Office estimates these tax extensions would reduce federal revenue by approximately $4 trillion over a decade, intensifying pressure for spending cuts elsewhere.

The administration has set an ambitious goal of July 4, 2025, for budget passage. If this timeline holds, districts could begin feeling funding impacts in fall 2025 with the federal fiscal year beginning October 1.

What does this mean for your district?

The budget proposal marks only the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a complex negotiation process. While the proposed education cuts are significant, history suggests the final budget passed by Congress may differ substantially from this initial outline.

For now, education leaders should focus on understanding these potential changes while continuing their normal operations and planning. As budget negotiations progress toward the July 4 target date, clearer information about impacts on specific programs and district-level funding should emerge.

 

 

 

 

SB33 Allows Employers to Post Labor Law Notices Online

SB33 Allows Employers to Post Labor Law Notices Online

by | May 14, 2025 | Labor and Employment

Ohio recently passed SB33, which goes into effect on July 21, 2025. This law makes changes to the requirement for employers to post labor law notices and will now allow them to be posted online. Previously, employers were required to post labor law notices in a conspicuous location(s) of employment.

The labor law notices that are required to be posted are the following:

  • Ohio’s Minor Labor Law (excluding the list of minors employed by an employer)
  • Ohio’s Minimum Fair Wage Standards Law (minimum wage and overtime)
  • Ohio’s Civil Rights Law
  • Ohio’s Prevailing Wage Law
  • Ohio’s Workers’ Compensation Law
  • Ohio’s Public Employment Risk Reduction Program Law

The law is clear that the online posting location must be accessible for employees and the public. If the employer chooses to do so, the postings can still be done physically.

What does this mean for your school district? 

Your district may still wish to post the required labor law notices physically in each place of employment if you wish to, but it will no longer be necessary. You can now place them on your school website in a place that is accessible for your employees and the public to see. Please contact your attorney at Ennis Britton if you have any questions or concerns about where and how to post the required notices.