State ex rel. Guerrero v. Ferguson
Cases that cite this one
20 later published cases cite this decision.
- Ohio Civ. Rights Comm. v. David Richard Ingram, D.C. (Ohio 1994)
- Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Ingram (Ohio 1994)
- State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local School District Board of Education (Ohio 2005)
- Mers v. Dispatch Printing Co. (Ohio Ct. App. 1988)
- State ex rel. Hamlin v. Collins (Ohio 1984)
- State ex rel. Crumbley v. City of Cleveland (Ohio Ct. App. 2009)
- State ex rel. Couch v. Trimble Local School District Board of Education (Ohio 2008)
- State ex rel. Municipal Construction Equipment Operators' Labor Council v. City of Cleveland (Ohio 2007)
- State ex rel. Reyna v. Natalucci-Persichetti (Ohio 1998)
- State ex rel. Reyna v. Natalucci-Persichetti (Ohio 1998)
- Hunt v. Westlake City School District Board of Education (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
- Stevens v. Ravenna Aluminum Industries, Inc. (Ohio Ct. App. 1996)
- State ex rel. Lake County Board of Commissioners v. Weaver (Ohio 1993)
- State ex rel. Lake Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Weaver (Ohio 1993)
- Edwards v. Dubruiel, Unpublished Decision (12-20-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- State Ex Rel. Cottrill-Craig v. R.C.G.H., Unpublished Decision (3-12-2002) (Ohio Ct. App. 2002)
- State ex rel. Fenske v. McGovern (Ohio 1984)
- Aldahan v. Tansky Sales, Inc., Unpublished Decision (6-20-2000) (Ohio Ct. App. 2000)
- Esselburne v. Ohio Dept. of Agriculture (Ohio Ct. App. 1990)
- Meyer v. Chagrin Falls Exempted Village School District Board of Education (Ohio Ct. App. 1983)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
It is well-settled that “[a]n action in mandamus is maintainable by a reinstated public employee to recover compensation due him for the period of time during which he was wrongfully excluded from his employment, provided the amount recoverable is established with certainty.” State, ex rel. Martin, v. Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 261, paragraph one of the syllabus. It is undisputed herein that the action of the Controlling Board in transferring the Commission’s funds was unlawful", and that relators’ layoff would not have occurred but for that action. We find, therefore, that relators are entitled to back pay.
The method of determining the amount of back pay recoverable was set forth in Monaghan v. Richley (1972), 32 Ohio St. 2d 190, at 195: “ * * * The amount recoverable is, of course, the amount of compensation the employee would have received had he not been wrongfully excluded from his employment, which amount is subject to reduction **by the amount he earned or in the exercise of due diligence could have earned in appropriate employment during the period of exclusion.’ State, ex rel. Wilcox, v. Woldman, supra (157 Ohio St. 264), paragraph one of the syllabus.”
The parties have stipulated to the amounts relators would have earned during the period of their layoff and to the amounts relators received in unemployment compensation. Since the state cannot be required to pay twice, State, ex rel. Crockett, v. Robinson (1981), 67 Ohio St. 2d 363, at 368, relators’ back pay award is to be reduced by the amount received in unemployment benefits.
Relators also claim entitlement to a credit of vacation and sick leave they would have earned during their layoff. However, since these days cannot be established with certainty, they cannot be credited to relators. Id., at 368-369. Similarly, relators’ claim for lost medical coverage is denied.
Accordingly, the writ prayed for is denied as to the restoration of vacation and sick leave and as to lost medical coverage. The writ prayed for is allowed as to back pay, reduced by the amount received in unemployment benefits.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.