Skip to main content

Lorain County Auditor v. Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission

OhioApril 4, 2007No. Nos. 2005-2359 and 2005-2375Cited 8 times
Plaintiff WinLorain County Sheriff's Department
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Began, Bressler, Connor, Consideration, Cupp, Donnell, Ended, Lanzinger, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Twelfth, Whose
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

Ohio Supreme Court held that an intermittent employee is entitled to unemployment compensation benefits when not scheduled for work, despite having voluntarily entered an intermittent-employment contract. The court reversed lower court decisions and affirmed the employee's eligibility for benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** A worker at the Lorain County Sheriff's Department had what's called an "intermittent" employment contract, meaning they only worked when scheduled or called in, rather than having regular full-time hours. When the employee wasn't given work shifts and applied for unemployment benefits, the county argued they shouldn't qualify because they had voluntarily agreed to this type of on-call arrangement. **What the Court Decided** The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in favor of the worker, saying that intermittent employees can receive unemployment benefits during periods when they're not scheduled to work. The court rejected the county's argument that voluntarily accepting intermittent employment should disqualify someone from benefits when work isn't available. **Why This Matters for Workers** This decision protects workers in part-time, seasonal, or on-call positions. If you work an intermittent schedule and suddenly have no shifts available through no fault of your own, you may still be eligible for unemployment compensation. The ruling recognizes that even workers who accept flexible arrangements need financial support when work disappears, regardless of whether they initially agreed to the uncertain schedule.

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

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.