Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn

The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment to appellee on appellant's race discrimination and sex discrimination claims. Judgment affirmed.

The trial court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of appellee Dayton Public Schools Board of Education. The record contains genuine issues of material fact as to (1) whether the appellants' employment with Dayton Public Schools was suspended as part of a true reduction in force in the transportation department and (2) whether the appellants were qualified to be recalled into newly created positions. Judgments reversed and remanded.

A public school treasurer was not entitled to additional damages based on the school board's failure to send him further notices of nonrenewal after he was reemployed by operation of law pursuant to R.C. 3313.22(A). Under the statute, the treasurer was entitled to only a one-year term of reemployment, and the trial court did not err in limiting damages to one year. The trial court did err in failing to award the treasurer attorney fees based on the school board's violation of R.C. 121.22(F). Under R.C. 121.22(I)(2)(a), a well-informed school board would reasonably have believed, based on ordinary application of the law, that it was violating or threatening to violate R.C. 121.22. Furthermore, a well-informed school board reasonably would have believed that its conduct would not serve public policy. Finally, the trial court also erred in adding damages that were not statutorily authorized under R.C. 3313.22(A), which allows recovery only of the treasurer's salary and increments. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. (Hall, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.)

A school board's special meeting notice failed to comply with R.C. 121.22(F), because the board failed to properly state the purpose of the open session of the meeting. The board's resolution not to renew an employee's contract, therefore, was invalid, and the trial court erred in rendering summary judgment in the board's favor. Although the school board also failed to comply with certain requirements of R.C. 3313.16 when it sent out the notice for the special meeting, the trial court did not err in finding a lack of prejudice because the employee had actual notice of the meeting. In addition, the board's motion to go into executive session facially complied with R.C. 121.22(G)(1). Whether the Board improperly disguised its intentions in calling the meeting and in moving into executive session do not need to be considered, due to the invalidity of the resolution adopted at the special meeting. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.