Skip to main content

State Ex Rel. Keyes v. Ohio Public Employees Retirement System

OhioAugust 18, 2009No. 2008-2167Cited 8 times
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Moyer, Pfeifer, Stratton, O'Connor, O'Donnell, Lanzinger, Cupp
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The Ohio Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus compelling the PERS retirement board to comply with Ohio Administrative Code 145-1-01 regarding proper voting procedures. The court found that the board abused its discretion by treating a vote where only 5 of 10 members present voted affirmatively as official action, when 6 votes were required to constitute a majority of those members present.

What This Ruling Means

This case involved the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (PERS), which manages retirement benefits for state employees. A PERS board meeting failed to follow proper voting procedures when making decisions about employee benefits. During the meeting, only 5 out of 10 board members voted in favor of a proposal, but the board treated this as an official decision even though 6 votes were needed to constitute a majority of those present. A concerned party challenged this improper voting procedure in court, arguing that the retirement board wasn't following Ohio's administrative rules about how votes should be conducted. The Ohio Supreme Court sided with the challenger and ordered the PERS board to follow the correct voting procedures outlined in Ohio Administrative Code 145-1-01. The court found that the board had abused its authority by accepting a vote that didn't meet the required majority threshold. This ruling matters for public employees because it ensures that decisions affecting their retirement benefits are made through proper procedures. When retirement boards follow correct voting rules, it provides better protection for workers' interests and ensures that major decisions about their benefits aren't made without sufficient support from board members.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

State ex rel. Haydocy v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Sys.
OhioMay 2026
Defendant Win
Sherman
OhioOct 2020

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.

Plaintiff Win
State ex rel. AutoZone Stores, Inc. v. Indus. Comm.
OhioNov 2024

Workers' compensation—Temporary-total-disability compensation—R.C. 4123.56—Employee who had already been terminated for violation of employment policies before his shoulder surgery was not "unable to work" as "direct result of an impairment arising from an injury or occupational disease" under plain language of R.C. 4123.56(F) and thus was not entitled to receive temporary-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment reversed and writ granted.

Defendant Win
Shabazz
OhioNov 2024

Quo warranto—Mandamus—Appellants failed to challenge court of appeals' judgment dismissing their quo warranto claim on basis of laches and therefore waived that argument—Court of appeals' determination that appellants could not establish entitlement to city-council offices or that appellees were unlawfully holding the positions affirmed—Court of appeals' denial of request for writ of mandamus ordering continued payment of salaries and benefits as moot affirmed.

Defendant Win

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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.