U.S. Department of Labor Issues Opinion regarding Athletic Coaches

by | Apr 11, 2018 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued an official statement of Wage and Hour Division policy concerning athletic coaches for public schools. Opinion Letter FLSA2018-6, issued on January 5, 2018, is an exact reproduction of a previous Wage and Hour Division opinion that was issued in 2009 and then rescinded less than two months later.

This Opinion Letter states that community members who coach public school athletic teams qualify as teachers under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and are therefore exempt from FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay provisions.

It is important to note that this exemption applies only to coaches who are not employees of the school district. It does not apply to coaches who are employed in another nonteaching capacity by the school district. In the latter case, these coaches are not exempt from the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime pay provisions.

The DOL explains that coaches spend most of their time instructing student athletes in the rules and fundamentals of their respective sports. When not instructing players, coaches recruit students, supervise them during trips to and from games, discipline them when necessary, and account for their equipment. “Coaches qualify for the exemption if their primary duty is teaching and imparting knowledge to students in an educational establishment.”

Furthermore, a teaching certificate is not required to qualify for this FLSA exemption, nor is a certain minimum education or degree. “Thus, coaches whose primary duty is teaching qualify for the exemption whether or not they hold a teaching certificate or an academic degree.”

Therefore, based upon this new guidance, a school may pay its coaches as it deems appropriate so long as they are not otherwise employed by the district in a nonteaching capacity.

OAG Again Addresses Interest in Public Contracts

by | Mar 23, 2018 | Board Policy & Representation

On March 16, the Ohio Attorney General released Opinion No. 2018-006, which again addresses board member interests in public contracts. In this instance, a member of a board of education leased a building through a limited liability company to the school district for which the part-owner served as a member of a board of education. This action was determined to violate R.C. 3313.33, which provides that no member of the board shall have, directly or indirectly, any pecuniary interest in any contract of the board. When such a condition arises, the board member must resign their position with the board of education or divest themselves of the contract.

In such situations, the lease can be determined void, voidable, or unenforceable at the reasonable discretion of the board of education. The OAG stated that a board of education may reasonably conclude that the lease continues to be valid and enforceable after the part-owner of the limited liability company takes office as a member of the board of education if several conditions are met:

  1. At the time that the lease was executed, the lease did not constitute a violation of 3313.33 for any member serving on the board of education at execution;
  2. After the part-owner takes office as a member of the board of education, the board of education takes no action to alter the terms of the lease that was executed before the part-owner took office.
  3. The board member divests himself or herself of the prohibited interest in the lease within a reasonable period of time after taking office.

For condition 3, the OAG opined that the person must act “immediately” to divest himself from the contract as part-owner if he wishes to remain a board of education member. Moreover, going forward, the board cannot enter into a new lease with the limited liability company after the current lease expires as long as the board member has an impermissible pecuniary interest in the lease.

The OAG also found that this circumstance could fall within the criminal provision in R.C. 2921.42, which makes it a criminal act for a public official to have an unlawful interest in a public contract. The exceptions include the following:

  • Contracts for necessary supplies or services
  • Where supplies or services that are unobtainable elsewhere or are being furnished as part of a continuing course of business established prior to the officials association with the public entity
  • The treatment accorded the public entity is preferential to or the same as to other customers
  • The entire transaction was conducted at arm’s length, with knowledge by the public agency and where the official takes no part in deliberations or discussions about the contract.

In this case, none of the exceptions applied.

The full opinion is available here.

U.S. Department of Education Weighs In on Handling of Transgender Student Complaints

by | Feb 14, 2018 | Board Policy & Representation

On February 12, 2018, BuzzFeed News issued an article detailing an interview with U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) officials wherein the USDOE spokesperson outlined the department’s policy on how it would handle transgender student complaints. The details of this article, and statements made by the USDOE spokesperson, were later confirmed by NPR’s Education News Desk. (Please note that although BuzzFeed is not typically a news source for Ennis Britton, the details of the interview and the fact that the details were confirmed by another news source renders this information useful and informative.)

Essentially, the USDOE spokesperson has said that the USDOE will not investigate or take action on any complaints filed by transgender students who are banned from restrooms that match their gender identity. If the complaint alleges that the transgender student has been bullied, harassed, or punished due to his or her gender nonconformity, the USDOE will investigate and possibly take action against a school district.

Substance of Complaint

  

USDOE Action
Alleges harassment, bullying, or punishment for failing to conform to sex-based stereotypes Will be accepted and possibly investigated by the USDOE
Alleges transgender student was denied access to accommodations such as restrooms and locker rooms Will not be accepted by the USDOE

The USDOE has been noticeably silent on issues dealing with transgender students since it withdrew the May 13, 2016, Dear Colleague Letter on transgender students on February 22, 2017. The withdrawal letter can be found here. This recent interview with the USDOE spokesperson does nothing other than lay out how the USDOE will handle complaints from transgender students. This does not mean that transgender students can never bring a claim for discrimination based on their gender identity or their failure to conform to sex-based stereotypes, but it does mean that such claims will be filed in the courts as opposed to the USDOE.

This is a rather strange parsing for the USDOE and a fine line to walk in terms of what will be classified as bullying, harassment, and punishment. (See the Seventh Circuit Court case discussed below.) Districts need to be aware that if a student claims that he or she has been bullied, harassed, or punished because of being transgender or because of failure to conform to sex-based stereotypes, such a complaint must be processed and investigated pursuant to the school district’s anti-discrimination policies. Failure to do so or to take such complaints seriously could result in complaints filed with and investigated by the USDOE.

The remaining issue is accommodations – specifically, bathroom and changing/locker room access. The USDOE’s statement has made clear that this battle will occur in courts around the country as opposed to the USDOE. Therefore, it is important to see where the courts’ decisions are falling with respect to this issue around the country.

Remember, the U.S. Supreme Court canceled oral arguments in G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board, 82 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2016), vacated and remanded, 137 S. Ct. 1239 (U.S. 2017), remanded, 869 F.3d 286 (4th Cir. 2017), after the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice revoked the May 13, 2016, guidance from the previous administration. Based on the rescission, the U.S. Supreme Court remanded the case back down to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to be reconsidered. The student in that case graduated in June 2017 and has since withdrawn his motion for a preliminary injunction and filed an amended complaint for nominal damages. The former student seeks a declaration that the school board violated his rights under Title IX and the Equal Protection Clause, as well as a permanent injunction preventing the school board from excluding him from using the restrooms when he is on school grounds.

In December 2016, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, relying on the now-rescinded advice, agreed with a lower court decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio regarding how an Ohio school district treated an eleven-year-old transgender student. The courts found that the eleven-year-old student had a strong likelihood of success in her claims against the Ohio school district and therefore should be allowed to use the school restrooms that correspond to her gender identity and otherwise be treated like other female students during the pendency of the lawsuit. However, please note although these courts have great impact and control in Ohio, they relied on the now-rescinded guidance from the USDOE, and how these courts will rule on the same issue is uncertain now that the guidance has been rescinded. Further, this case still remains to be fully and finally litigated; both the Southern District of Ohio and the Sixth Circuit ruled only on motions for an injunction; they have not yet ruled on the substantive issues at hand. This case is still pending.

Additionally, although not controlling in Ohio, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision in May 2017 (after the USDOE rescinded its previous guidance) that may be informative both in Ohio and around the country. The Seventh Circuit Court found that a school district was sex stereotyping a transgender student when it required the transgender male student to use the girls’ restroom or a private restroom. In its decision, the court held that a “policy that requires an individual to use a bathroom that does not conform with his or her gender identity punishes that individual for his or her gender non-conformance, which in turn violates Title IX” (emphasis added). The school district filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting that the Court overturn the lower court’s decision. The U.S. Supreme Court granted this petition; however, the parties have since settled their dispute, agreeing on a payment of $800,000 to the student (and presumably the attorneys for fees), as well as permission for the student to use the men’s restroom if he returns to the district as an alumnus (the student graduated and no longer would be in daily attendance). As a result, although the U.S. Supreme Court will not be ruling on this case, the Seventh Circuit Court’s decision in favor of accommodating the transgender student stands.

Conclusion

In sum, the “new” information out of the USDOE does not change anything for school districts. The USDOE has simply communicated how it will handle complaints from transgender students. If the complaint deals with accommodations (restrooms, locker rooms, etc.), the USDOE will not accept the cases; but if the complaint has to do with bullying, harassment, or punishment based on transgender status, it will.

Instead, the question of whether and how to provide accommodations to transgender students will be a matter to be litigated through the court system in the years to come. For additional advice on handling requests for accommodations for transgender students or working through complaints of discrimination, please contact an Ennis Britton attorney for assistance.

 

Budget Bill, Part II: Uncodified Law

by | Jul 24, 2017 | Board Policy & Representation, Legislation

To continue our review of the education-related provisions of the state budget, we will look at the temporary law, or uncodified sections, of the budget. If you scroll toward the end of the five thousand-plus pages of the budget, you will find some odd numbering. You have found what is called temporary law or uncodified law.

This is separated as temporary or uncodified law for several reasons. Appropriations are uncodified because they cannot (per the Ohio Constitution) be made for more than two years. Other things found in temporary law may describe how the appropriations will be used (for the establishment and function of committees, task forces, stakeholder groups, preparation of a report, etc.). This temporary law expires at the end of the biennium (in two years).

Several provisions in this somewhat-obscure section of the budget affect Ohio schools, and below is a short summary of those provisions.

  • The graduation changes applicable only to the class of 2018 are found in the uncodified law because they are intended to apply only to that class. These changes establish additional ways for these students to demonstrate eligibility for a high school diploma. These additional options are presented for both academic and career-technical students. Stay tuned for an upcoming blog post with specifics on these graduation options.
  • A new state workgroup on related services will be tasked with the goal of “improving coordination of state, school and provider efforts to address the related services needs of students with disabilities.” This group and its study will sunset on June 30, 2019.
  • Expanding the SNAP program and drawing down federal match dollars for the employment and training of low-income individuals will be the subject of a planning committee, which will be established by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services and the chancellor of higher education.
  • There will be changes to tuition payments for students in private residential treatment centers who are placed by a court or other state agency order (not parental placements). Additional provisions set out who is responsible for providing the educational program when a child is placed in one of those facilities, which include private facilities for the treatment of juvenile sex offenders, mental health and drug addiction, and other, severe behavior issues.
  • ODE was directed to study the appropriate funding for each category of gifted students and propose a method for funding gifted education courses and programs; a report is due May 1, 2018.
  • Under a new “flexible funding” program, school districts, including educational service centers and career-technical districts, may transfer foundation and special education enhancement funding to a new funding pool called the Family and Children First Funding Pool.
  • The “Straight A” governing board and committee will cease to exist and records will be transferred to ODE. Straight A grant recipients that received funds in FY 2016 and 2017 and will have remaining funds to spend in FY 2018 may do so in accord with the grant agreement; however, even if grant provisions specify additional funds, these funds will not be paid in future fiscal years. ODE will not pay any additional Straight A grant funds, and ODE’s function will be limited to ensuring districts spend remaining funds in accordance with the agreement. ODE was directed to report to the legislature on the grants awarded, recipients, effectiveness, and recommendations for Straight A grant projects that might warrant repeating in the future.
  • An appropriation was made to ODE for a policy analysis service, whose purpose is to develop reports, briefings, and analyses to inform education policymakers of current trends in education practice, efficient and effective use of resources, and evaluation of programs to improve education results.
  • An early childhood education program appropriation will fund and monitor existing and new early childhood education programs provided by city, local, exempted village, joint vocational, and educational service centers, community schools sponsored by an exemplary sponsor, chartered nonpublic schools, and other licensed early childhood education providers. The appropriation requires these providers to meet “Step Up to Quality” program standards.
  • An Early Childhood Education Pilot Program in Appalachia in two counties of the Appalachian region of the state will be established, with funding given to existing or new providers of early childhood education to serve 125 children in each fiscal year. The data from the pilot program will be studied.
  • In addition, a parental choice early childhood education pilot program will be funded, to implement “one or more parent choice models to deliver early childhood education to eligible children.”

The appropriations section of the education department begins in the budget on page 4,523. You can see all the appropriations for FY 2018 and 2019, as well as all the uncodified law applicable to the Department of Education. Or you can call your friendly Ennis Britton attorney for more information on provisions that interest you.

 

 

Budget Bill Overview: Impacts on Education in Ohio

by | Jul 7, 2017 | Board Policy & Representation, Legislation

Every two years, Ohio legislators and the governor are tasked with passing a biannual budget for the state. Ohio’s budget bill always has a direct effect on public education, from both a financial and an operational perspective. On June 30, Gov. Kasich signed a final version of House Bill 49. However, the governor vetoed 44 separate provisions, a number of which directly impact public schools.

As a final step, the House and Senate may vote to override any of the governor’s vetoes. The House has already voted on 11 veto overrides (none of them related to education), and the Senate is expected to do so very soon. Both houses of the General Assembly must override gubernatorial vetoes by a three-fifths margin prior to the end of the legislative session, which is December 31, 2018.

Title 33 Provisions

Below are some of the education-related provisions in Title 33 of the Revised Code. These will be effective late September.

  • Social studies has been removed from the required statewide achievement tests for the fourth and sixth grades. Instead, school districts will be required to teach and assess social studies in at least fourth and sixth grades, and may select any assessment tools for the subject. Results will not be reported to the Ohio Department of Education. Social studies has been removed from the list of subjects for which each district must provide prevention/intervention services to students who score below the proficient level established by the state.
  • Beginning in July 2018, districts will be required to identify victims of any student who is disciplined for violent behavior in EMIS. Victims will be identified by classification (student, teacher, nonteacher, etc.) but not by name.
  • Districts may administer certain portions of the kindergarten diagnostic assessment up to two weeks prior to the first day of school.
  • Beginning on the effective date of the bill until October 1, 2021, no school district that is party to an annexation agreement shall transfer territory that is or will be used for nonresidential purposes to another school district that is party to the annexation agreement without the approval of both boards unless the territory of one of those boards overlaps with a new community authority created prior to January 1, 1993.
  • As of January 1, 2018, the SERS board may increase each allowance, pension, or benefit payable to its members by the percentage increase (if any) of the consumer price index, which cannot exceed 2.5 percent.
  • The deadline for students to apply for the Jon Peterson special needs scholarship has been eliminated. Students may apply anytime.
  • A financial provision was added to help schools recover some of the property tax losses incurred because of the devaluation of power plants.
  • STEM schools have been added to the list of entities that a public board of education must first offer an unused school facility for sale or lease. STEM schools will now have the same rights to such property that start-up community schools and college-preparatory boarding schools currently have.
  • HB 49 modifies the recently enacted Lindsay’s Law to state that students are required to annually submit a form that acknowledges they have received information about sudden cardiac arrest. Prior law required students to submit the form for each athletic activity each school year.
  • Students who have an F-1 visa and attend an elementary or secondary school that operates a dormitory on its campus must now be permitted to participate in interscholastic athletics to the same extent resident students may participate.
  • School districts may integrate academic content in a subject area for which the state board has adopted standards into a course in a different subject area including a career-technical education course in accordance with guidance that will be issued by ODE. The student may receive credit for both subject areas upon successful completion of the course. If an end-of-course examination is required for the subject area delivered through integrated instruction, the school may administer the related subject area exam upon completion of the integrated course.
  • By December 31, 2017, ODE must develop a framework for school districts to use in granting units of high school credit to students who demonstrate subject area competencies through work-based learning experiences, internships, or cooperative education experiences. Districts must comply with the framework and adopt changes to any of their policies regarding demonstration of subject area competencies by the start of the 2018–2019 school year.
  • Schools are no longer required to train substitutes, adult education instructors who work the full-time equivalent of less than 120 days, or seasonal workers on operation of an AED as long as these individuals do not serve as a coach or supervisor for athletic programs.
  • Students will be able to earn an OhioMeansJobs-readiness seal on their diplomas.
  • The superintendent of public instruction is tasked to work with the governor’s office and business officials to establish a committee that will develop a list of industry-recognized credentials and licenses that may be used to qualify for a high school diploma. The credentials must align with the in-demand jobs list published by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. The credentials will be used on state report cards.
  • School districts that provide educational services to certain special education students who reside in a home or facility now have two options to receive tuition payments: directly from the district of residence or from ODE. If the school district opts to receive the tuition from the district of residence, it shall not receive a tuition payment for that student from ODE.
  • School districts must now permit students to carry and self-apply sunscreen, and further are prohibited from requiring authorization from a health care provider to apply sunscreen (districts may still require parent authorization).
  • Students are prohibited from using or possessing any substance that contains betel nut on school premises. Betel nuts are harvested from the Areca palm, which originates in Asia, and are considered a powerful stimulant when chewed. The nuts are believed to be a carcinogen and are linked to high rates of oral cancer.
  • School districts which determine that for financial reasons they cannot establish state-mandated summer food service programs must permit an approved summer food service program sponsor to use the school facilities located in areas where at least half of the students are eligible for free lunches. The districts may charge the service program sponsor a reasonable fee and shall require the sponsor to indemnify the district for any liability that arises from the sponsor’s food service operations.
  • The superintendent of public instruction must develop standards for the operation of business advisory councils established by a board of education. These standards will, at a minimum, require the council to meet at least quarterly with the board and to develop a plan on how and about which matters it will advise the board. Current law requires that each school district board of education and ESC governing board appoint a business advisory council to advise and provide recommendations to the board regarding industry employment and skills needs.
  • ODE will establish an option for career-technical education students to participate in pre-apprenticeship training programs that develop skills and knowledge needed for successful participation in a registered apprenticeship occupation course.
  • HB 49 permits a school district to hire and pay a substitute educational aide who does not currently hold an aide permit and who fills in during an emergency or employee leave of absence. This provision creates an exception to the requirement that an educational aide/paraprofessional hold an aide permit from ODE before he/she may be paid to serve in that capacity. An individual may now serve as a “substitute educational aide” for up to 60 days provided that the school district superintendent believes that he/she has the qualifications to obtain an aide permit, the individual passes a criminal background check, and the individual has already submitted an application for the permit. The individual must stop working as a substitute when one of three things occurs: (1) ODE approves the application and grants a permit, (2) the application is denied, or (3) the application has not been approved after 60 days of work.
  • ODE has express authority to reject or inactivate an educator license if the individual fails to submit fingerprints and written permission for a criminal background check.
  • State law now recognizes creation of a STEAM community or nonpublic school, which stands for science, technology, engineering, arts, and mathematics. STEAM schools must meet certain requirements, including involvement of arts organizations.
  • Bid bonds are no longer required for purchase of school buses unless the board of education or governing board requests that bid bonds be a part of the bidding process.
  • The state board’s rules for staffing ratios must now include two specific provisions for preschool programs that serve children with disabilities. First, the rules must require at a minimum that a school provide a full-time staff member when eight full-day or sixteen half-day preschool children eligible for special education are enrolled in a center-based preschool special education program. Second, the state board rules must also mandate a staff ratio of one teacher for every eight children at all times for a program with a center-based teacher, and a second adult must be present when nine or more children, including nondisabled children, are enrolled in a class session.
  • State colleges must provide students enrolled in education preparation programs with instruction in opioid and other substance abuse prevention.
  • A number of changes have been made to the College Credit Plus (CCP) program. The bill modifies the appeal process for students when a principal refuses to provide written consent for participation. The final appeal will now be heard within 30 days by the district superintendent rather than the state board of education. Also, to be eligible to participate in CCP, participants must now be remediation free for college entrance exams in one of the following: mathematics, science, reading, or writing. The college is required to pay for one assessment. Several funding provisions of CCP have been modified as well. Finally, the chancellor of higher education in consultation with the superintendent of public instruction must adopt rules that specify the conditions under which an underperforming student may continue to participate in CCP.
  • Advisory group of school districts and other stakeholders to make recommendations for changes to EMIS to format standards and data definitions. Districts not using uniform data definitions and data format standards will have all EMIS funding withheld until the district comes into compliance.
  • The court of claims received more than $500,000 in each fiscal year to fund public records adjudications.
  • Career-technical education enhancements:
    • New “Agricultural Fifth-Quarter Project” program funded at $600,000 each fiscal year for work-based learning through supervised agricultural experience anytime outside of the school day. ODE will develop eligibility criteria and will fund as many programs as possible.
    • CTC programs (along with STEM, community schools, and city/local/exempted village districts) could pay the cost of earning an industry credential or journeyman certification recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor for economically disadvantaged students and be reimbursed by ODE pursuant to a $750,000 appropriation.

Vetoed Provisions

The governor vetoed a number of education-related provisions adopted in the enrolled version of HB 49. Some of the vetoed provisions include the following:

  • A provision to permit districts to administer a paper version of state assessments.
  • A provision to grant additional authority to the Joint Education Oversight Committee to invalidate a manual adopted by ODE that it develops to audit full-time equivalency student enrollment reporting by school districts. ODE is still required to develop the manual and submit it to the Joint Education Oversight Committee for review.
  • A provision to permit an ESC with a rating of effective or higher to sponsor a community school regardless of whether the school is located in the ESC’s service territory or a contiguous county.
  • A number of provisions to eliminate the resident educator program, which new teachers must complete during their first four years in the profession. As a result, the resident educator and resident educator professional teaching license will continue at least for the upcoming school year.
  • A provision to require College Credit Plus students to earn a grade of C or higher to continue participation in the program.

Upcoming Presentation

The budget bill will be discussed in detail at the upcoming Administrator’s Academy webinar on July 13. Click here to register for the event.

Arbitrator May Override Employer’s Disciplinary Decision — Absent Contract Limitations

by | Jun 6, 2017 | Board Policy & Representation, Labor and Employment

Reversing the decision of two lower courts, the Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that absent negotiated language in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) limiting an arbitrator’s authority to modify a disciplinary action for just cause, an arbitrator has authority both to review the disciplinary action and to fashion a remedy that is outside the scope of the CBA.

A City of Findlay police officer was first disciplined in 2012 for conduct unbecoming. This discipline was grieved, taken to arbitration, and then modified by the arbitrator to be in line with the city’s use of a discipline matrix.

Later that same year, the same officer was found to have violated the department’s sexual harassment policy, and termination of the officer’s employment contract was recommended. The termination was grieved and taken to arbitration. The arbitrator determined that the city did not present evidence to support termination, and therefore he set aside the termination. Instead, the arbitrator determined that the disciplinary matrix could not be used, stated that a “lengthy disciplinary suspension [was] warranted,” and imposed a five-month suspension. The city appealed this decision to the county common pleas court. Both the common pleas court and the appeals court agreed with the city and found that the arbitration award did not draw its essence form the CBA and was arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful (i.e., the arbitrator overstepped his authority and power). However, the Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, on behalf of the officer, appealed these decisions to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court was left to determine whether the just cause discipline provision in the CBA authorized an arbitrator to change the disciplinary action recommended by the employer (in this case, the police chief using a disciplinary matrix). Key to this case was the fact that the disciplinary matrix used by the department to discipline the officer was not part of or mentioned in the CBA. Furthermore, the CBA neither mentioned the department’s disciplinary procedures nor restricted an arbitrator’s authority to review the appropriateness of the type of discipline imposed upon finding just cause for discipline. Absent this limiting language in the CBA, the arbitrator was free to fashion a remedy that he believed was appropriate.

Only Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor dissented from the court’s majority opinion, noting that the case should not have been accepted by the Supreme Court in the first place and that the majority’s decision could have unintended consequences as it seems to throw out the consideration of past practice(s). She noted that the department used the matrix as a past practice as the basis for disciplinary action, and the inability to rely on this or throw it out of consideration is dangerous. O’Connor concluded that under the majority opinion, even if a past practice is established related to disciplinary outcomes, an arbitrator could modify the discipline if the practice is shown as not specifically bargained for and incorporated into the CBA. This, in her opinion, is an undesirable result.

School districts should be aware that this holding by the Supreme Court could impact arbitrations and the review of the same by courts in Ohio. The court concluded, “Any limitation on an arbitrator’s authority to modify a disciplinary action pursuant to a CBA provision requiring that discipline be imposed only for just cause must be specifically bargained for by the parties and incorporated into the CBA.”

 

Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Findlay, Slip Opinion No. 20147-Ohio-2804.