October 2021 Suspended Bus Supervisors Reinstated After RIF .……………......1 Special Education Spotlight: Ways to Ease Anxiety for Online Learners with Disabilities ........................... 2 The House is in Session. What’s on Their Docket? A Lot. .................... 3 Providing Public Records Requests from Your School Databases ........ 5
Suspended Bus Supervisors Reinstated After Reduction in Force State ex rel. Bennett v. Dayton Pub. Schools Bd. of Edn., 2021-Ohio-3119 The Ohio Court of Appeals for the Second District, Montgomery County recently reinstated four Dayton Public School administrative employees whose contracts had been suspended due to a reduction in force (RIF). Under district policy, the affected employees were required to receive written notice of open positions they qualified for within two years of their unemployment.
In May 2016, the four employees signed a two-year contract to continue their employment as a “Transportation Supervisor II” in the school district’s transportation Upcoming Presentations .............. 7 office. Shortly after their contracts were signed, the superintendent recommended a RIF through reorganization and consolidation due to long-term declining enrollment and a corresponding loss of funding. By November 2016, the board voted to abolish their positions. Under the restructuring plan, the Transportation and Fleet Services Department was created which would oversee all district-owned vehicles. The district made job announcements for the new positions in December 2016 that would include more responsibilities and come with a higher salary. In addition, the new hires would receive significant training to help them navigate the new role. The employees claimed that they were never notified of the new open positions and alleged that they were qualified for those positions pursuant to the Board’s policy. After reviewing the job description for the newly created role, the employees disputed whether their old positions had truly been abolished or merely revised. They contend that their old job description was outdated and that their actual responsibilities had evolved and expanded prior to the RIF. They had also previously supervised three of the employees hired into the new position and therefore believe they were qualified to perform the duties required in the new role. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the school district, finding that the essential duties of the new position of Associate Director of Transportation and Fleet Services substantially differed from the original position of Transportation Supervisor II. The new position, for example, would supervise, purchase, and dispose of the motor fleet for the entire district, not just yellow school buses.