McCormack v. Jefferson Area Local School Dist.

Ohio Ct. App.September 17, 2018No. NO. 2018-A-0005Cited 2 times

Defendant WinJefferson Area Local School District

Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s): Rice
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 court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the school district had no duty to provide a legal defense to the employee (former basketball coach) in a civil action brought by two former students alleging sexual abuse, as the employee was not acting in good faith or within the scope of employment.

Excerpt

CIVIL - PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT - PROVISION OF DEFENSE AT PUBLIC EXPENSE - R.C. 2744.07(A)(1) following amendment to this statute, in order for a political subdivision to be required to provide a defense for its employee, the trial court must determine that the employee's act occurred while he was acting both in good faith and not manifestly outside the scope of his employment the pleadings themselves no longer provide an alternative basis on which to require a subdivision to provide its employee with a defense appellate court held the trial court's finding that the girls basketball coach's sexual activity with two of his students could not reasonably be considered to be in the scope of his employment was supported by competent, credible evidence.

What This Ruling Means

# McCormack v. Jefferson Area Local School District **What Happened** A former basketball coach at Jefferson Area Local School District was sued by two former students who alleged sexual abuse. The coach asked the school district to pay for his legal defense, claiming the district should cover his legal costs since he was employed there. **What the Court Decided** Ohio's appeals court ruled against the coach. The court found that the school district did not have to pay for his legal defense. Under state law, employers only must pay for employee legal defense when the employee was acting in good faith and stayed within their job duties. The court determined the coach failed to meet both requirements. **Why This Matters for Workers** This ruling clarifies that employers won't automatically cover legal costs for employee misconduct. Workers should understand that acting outside your job responsibilities or acting in bad faith can mean you lose employer protection and must pay your own legal fees. It also shows courts take seriously whether employee actions actually fit within their legitimate job duties.

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

Similar Rulings

Papp v. Cuyahoga Cty.

Ohio Ct. App.Jun 2026

Defendant Win

Yormick v. King David Post Acute Nursing & Rehab., L.L.C.

Ohio Ct. App.May 2026

Plaintiff Win

State v. Myers

Ohio Ct. App.Apr 2026

Remanded

Lashaway v. Lashaway

Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2026

Dismissed

State v. Ayers

Ohio Ct. App.Mar 2026

Plaintiff Win

Read Full Opinion More Jefferson Area Local School District Rulings All Rulings

Browse Related

More education employer cases

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.

Check My Rights Learn the Basics

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.