Summary
In State ex rel. Britton v. Scott, 6 Ohio St.3d 268, 452 N.E.2d 1312 (Ohio 1983), relied upon by Defendant, university employees had made requests for paid sick leave from their employer, Ohio State University, indicating that they had been absent due to personal illness.
Summary of this case from Runyan v. Bd. of Educ. of C. Exempted Vill.Opinion
No. 83-87
Decided August 24, 1983.
Public employment — Universities — Employer has discretion to approve or disapprove requests for paid sick leave — R.C. 124.38.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County.
This action arises over a dispute concerning the granting of paid sick leave to relators-appellants, who at all times relevant herein were classified employees at Ohio State University.
It is the procedure at Ohio State University that if an employee is going to be absent from work due to illness, he is required to call into work and notify his supervisor. No decision is made at that time as to whether the employee will receive paid sick leave. That decision is deferred until after the employee prepares and submits a form requesting paid sick leave and indicating the reason for the absence. Generally, the employee's supervisor makes a recommendation as to whether to approve the request which can be adopted or rejected by the appropriate department head or other designee.
Each of the appellants herein made requests for paid sick leave indicating that they had been absent due to personal illness, which requests were disapproved.
Appellants brought this action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Franklin County against, inter alia, respondents-appellees, Ohio State University, its vice-president in charge of personnel services, its director of employee relations, and the individual supervisors responsible for approving or disapproving appellants' requests for paid sick leave. The complaint alleged that appellees were under a mandatory duty to grant paid sick leave to appellants and requested the issuance of a writ to compel the payment of wages to appellants for the days that they were absent from work.
The court of appeals granted appellees' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and the cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Mr. Francisco A. Garabis, for appellants.
Messrs. Szolosi Fitch and Mr. Michael R. Szolosi, for appellees.
The granting of paid sick leave to appellants is governed by R.C. 124.38 which provides, in pertinent part:
"* * * [E]ach employee of any state college or university, * * * shall be entitled for each completed eighty hours of service to sick leave of four and six-tenths hours with pay. Employees may use sick leave, upon approval of the responsible administrative officer of the employing unit, for absence due to personal illness, pregnancy, injury, exposure to contagious disease which could be communicated to other employees, and to illness, injury, or death in the employee's immediate family. * * * The appointing authority of each employing unit shall require an employee to furnish a satisfactory written, signed statement to justify the use of sick leave. * * *" (Emphasis added.)
In State, ex rel. Bd of Edn., v. State Dept. of Edn. (1981), 67 Ohio St.2d 126, 128 [21 O.O.3d 79], we stated "* * * that the power to approve generally includes as well the power to disapprove. * * * It is well established that mandamus will not lie to substitute the discretion of a judicial tribunal for that of an administrative official, unless it is clearly shown that the refusal to perform the act constitutes an abuse of discretion. State, ex rel. Shafer, v. Ohio Turnpike Comm. (1953), 159 Ohio St. 581 [50 O.O. 465]; State, ex rel. Christman, v. Skinner (1933), 127 Ohio St. 55." See, also, State, ex rel. Democratic Executive Committee, v. Brown (1974), 39 Ohio St.2d 157, 161 [68 O.O.2d 100].
Appellants' complaint did not allege, nor do they argue herein, that appellees abused their discretion in denying appellants' requests for paid sick leave. Rather, they argue that appellees are without discretion to deny paid sick leave once a request has been made citing one of the permissible reasons enumerated in R.C. 124.38. This argument is without merit. R.C. 124.38 impliedly vests appellees with the discretion to approve or disapprove requests for paid sick leave. Thus, appellants have failed to demonstrate a clear legal duty on the part of appellees to perform the requested act herein.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.