State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
Case Details
- Citation
- 2026 Ohio 1928
- Status
- Published
- Procedural Posture
- appeal
- State
- Ohio
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Claim Types
Outcome
The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of the former state employee's mandamus action, holding that OPERS has clear legal authority to require a notarized consent form as part of refund applications, and the employee failed to demonstrate a clear legal right to relief without compliance with this requirement.
Similar Rulings
Ohio Public Employees Retirement System ("OPERS")—R.C. 145.38(B)(1)—R.C. 145.384—Reduction of health-insurance subsidy for a retiree reemployed by a state employer—Equal-protection claim—Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss—Retiree alleged sufficient facts to negate OPERS's argument that subsidy reductions for all OPERS-covered reemployed retirees are rational—OPERS's claim that it would incur additional costs in identifying retirees reemployed by an employer other than a state is not a sufficient rational basis requiring dismissal of retiree's complaint.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.