Trending
WARREN -- The Ohio Supreme Court in a 4-3 decision last week refused to hear oral arguments in a case involving the Ohio Patrolmen Benevolent Association and the city of Warren.
The association sought to reverse a 2014 decision by city officials to eliminate a sergeant, lieutenant and a captain position prior to a promotional examination. The ruling is expected to close a lawsuit initially filed in 2015 by the police union.
The OPBA filed a 2015 lawsuit against the city arguing the city should not have been allowed to eliminate the positions after two individuals who held the positions retired. Five officers filed the lawsuit in the 11th District Court of Appeals and asked that the city honor its promotional eligibility list and promote the next eligible candidates to sergeant, lieutenant and captain posts left vacant by retirements.
In November 2014, council members passed a resolution 9 to 1 to eliminate the three positions through attrition. Then-Safety Service Director Enzo Cantalamessa said the administration, with council approval, determined the authorized strength of the department.
It was not a collective-bargaining decision, Cantalamessa noted.
Patrolmen Edward J. Hetmanski, Jeffrey Orth and Benjamin Harrell, Sgt. Michael Merritt; and Lt. Martin Gargas are named as plaintiffs in the action filed against the City of Warren, Mayor Doug Franklin, Cantalamessa and the Warren Civil Service Commission.
The plaintiffs were requesting the court to order the city and its civil service commission to promote three officers from the eligibility list to captain, lieutenant and sergeant; provide back captain's pay and benefits to Gargas to Jan. 29, which was 30 days after Capt. Timothy Roberts retired; and provide back sergeant's pay and benefits to Hetmanski from Jan. 2.
"As long as it has taken to come to a final resolution to this case, we are pleased the Ohio Supreme Court ruled from the city's position," Cantalamessa, who is now the city's law director, said.
"It is always unfortunate when we are at odds with the OPBA," he said. "We felt that our arguments were on solid footing on how we went about eliminating rank positions through attrition."
Cantalamessa said the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in this case likely will settle attrition cases involving police and fire ranking officers for the remainder of the state. He noted that appeals court decisions from various jurisdictions had come down with a variety of interpretations and rulings.
"We were especially grateful the Supreme Court decision likely will establish the law around the state," he said. "If you're going to eliminate through attrition, we ultimately did it the right way."
OPBA Attorney Daniel Leffler could not be reached for comment.
The union argued the two positions should have been filled by the next ranking officers. Prior to the high court ruling, the union's case received a setback when in 2019, the 11th District Court of Appeals sided with the city -- a decision appealed by the OPBA to the Ohio Supreme Court.
In its dissenting opinion, Ohio Supreme Court's Sharon Kennedy wrote that position abolishment "done prospectively by attrition removes the appoint authority from what can sometimes be a difficult job; it can reduce the force from afar rather than having to deal with the process of demoting actual incumbents."
"It leaves open the possibility of manipulation," Kennedy noted. "On balance, it plunges personnel decisions into darkness, contrary to our civil service laws."