Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 124
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 124.327 (2026)

Layoff lists - reinstatement - reemployment

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
November 2, 2018
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 34 - 132nd General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Employees who have been laid off or have, by virtue of exercising their displacement rights, been displaced to a lower classification in their classification series, shall be placed on appropriate layoff lists. Those employees with the most retention points within each category of order of layoff, as established in section 124.323 of the Revised Code, shall be placed at the top of the layoff list to be followed by employees ranked in descending total retention order. Laid-off employees shall be placed on layoff lists for each classification in the classification series equal to or lower than the classification in which the employee was employed at the time of layoff.

(B) An employee who is laid off retains reinstatement rights in the agency from which the employee was laid off. Reinstatement rights continue for one year from the date of layoff. During this one-year period, in any layoff jurisdiction in which an appointing authority has an employee on a layoff list, the appointing authority shall not hire or promote anyone into a position within that classification until all laid-off persons on a layoff list for that classification who are qualified to perform the duties of the position are reinstated or decline the position when it is offered.

For an exempt employee, as defined in section 124.152 of the Revised Code, who has reinstatement rights into a bargaining unit classification, the exempt employee's recall jurisdiction shall be the counties in which the exempt employee indicates willingness to accept reinstatement as determined by the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

(C) Each laid-off or displaced employee, in addition to reinstatement rights within the employee's appointing authority, has the right to reemployment with any other state agency, board, commission, or independent institution described in division (B)(1) of section 124.326 of the Revised Code, if the employee meets all applicable position-specific minimum qualifications developed by the other agency, board, commission, or independent institution and reviewed for validity by the department of administrative services or, in the absence of position-specific minimum qualifications so developed and reviewed, meets the qualifications described in the applicable classification, but only in the same classification from which the employee was initially laid off or displaced. Layoff lists for each appointing authority must be exhausted before other jurisdiction reemployment layoff lists are used.

(D) Any employee accepting or declining reinstatement to the same classification and same appointment type from which the employee was laid off or displaced shall be removed from the appointing authority's layoff list.

(E) Any employee accepting or declining reemployment to the same classification and the same appointment type from which the employee was laid off or displaced shall be removed from the layoff list for the jurisdiction in which the employee accepted or declined that reemployment as determined under division (C) of this section.

(F) An employee who does not exercise the option to displace under section 124.324 of the Revised Code shall only be entitled to reinstatement or reemployment in the classification from which the employee was displaced or laid off.

(G) Except as otherwise provided in this division, an employee who declines reinstatement to a classification lower in the classification series than the classification from which the employee was laid off or displaced, thereafter is only entitled to reinstatement to a classification higher, up to and including the classification from which the employee was laid off or displaced, in the classification series than the classification that was declined. This division does not apply when an employee, who was a full-time employee at the time of layoff or displacement, declines reinstatement in a part-time position.

(H) Any employee reinstated or reemployed under this section shall not serve a probationary period upon reinstatement or reemployment, except that an employee laid off during an original or promotional probationary period shall begin a new probationary period.

(I) For the purposes of this section, employees whose salary or wage is not paid directly by warrant of the director of budget and management shall be placed on layoff lists of their appointing authority only.

(J) A state agency shall notify an employee recalled from layoff of the offer of reinstatement or reemployment either by certified letter or, if the agency has record of an internet identifier of record associated with the employee, by ordinary mail and by that internet identifier of record. As used in this division, "internet identifier of record" has the same meaning as in section 9.312 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1984–2011 · leading case: State Ex Rel. Tempesta v. City of Warren, 2011 Ohio 1525 (Ohio 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. Tempesta v. City of Warren, 2011 Ohio 1525 (Ohio 2011). · cites it 20× “{¶ 1} This is an action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city of Warren, Ohio, to reinstate relator, Frank M.”
State ex rel. Carver v. Hull, 639 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 3× “56; however, we also find that she is entitled to reinstatement due to Hull’s undisputed failure *573 to comply with R.C. 124.327. We further find that an appeal to SPBR was not available to Carver, and that the sheriffs removal is an inadequate remedy.”
Lucki v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 966 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “The city and the union argued that “because the collective-bargaining agreement justified the city’s promotion of [a] bargaining-unit member * * * to the position * * *, the agreement preempted [the plaintiffs] right to the position under the reinstatement provisions under R.C.…”
Bashford v. City of Portsmouth, 556 N.E.2d 477 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 2× “While that rule does provide for the creation of a layoff list and automatic re-appointment of employees to probationary permanent positions, see, also, R.C. 124.327(A), the rule neither refers to nor affects the calculation of the probationary period, and appellant does not…”
State Ex Rel. Blinn v. Ohio Dep't of Admin. Servs., 487 N.E.2d 343 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 5× “None of relators was eligible to displace employees with fewer retention points or in lower classifications and, thus, relators were placed on appropriate layoff lists for purposes of reinstatement or reemployment pursuant to R.C. 124.327. Relators assert, in their petition,…”
State ex rel. Carver v. Hull, 1994 Ohio 449 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 5× “56; however, we also find that she is entitled to reinstatement due to Hull's undisputed failure to comply with R.C. 124.327. We further find that an appeal to SPBR was not available to Carver, and that the sheriff's removal is an inadequate remedy.”
City of Warren v. Warren Mun. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 782 N.E.2d 1219 (Ohio Ct. App. 2002). “” Appellants also cite the language contained in the Ohio Revised Code and the Ohio Administrative Code, chapter and verse, distinguishing the entities of the municipal civil service commission and the director of administrative services.”
Lyons v. Nw. Ohio Developmental Ctr., 479 N.E.2d 272 (Ohio 1985). “” R.C. 124.327(C) alludes to the employee’s reinstatement rights “* * * within the employee’s appointing authority * * Obviously the legislature was referring to the actual agency, department or institution and not to the officer, board or commission authorized to hire or fire…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 124.327(A) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. Tempesta v. City of Warren, 2011 Ohio 1525 (Ohio 2011). “{¶ 1} This is an action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city of Warren, Ohio, to reinstate relator, Frank M.”
Bashford v. City of Portsmouth, 556 N.E.2d 477 (Ohio 1990). “While that rule does provide for the creation of a layoff list and automatic re-appointment of employees to probationary permanent positions, see, also, R.C. 124.327(A), the rule neither refers to nor affects the calculation of the probationary period, and appellant does not…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 124.327(B) — 4 cases
State Ex Rel. Tempesta v. City of Warren, 2011 Ohio 1525 (Ohio 2011). “{¶ 1} This is an action for a writ of mandamus to compel respondent, city of Warren, Ohio, to reinstate relator, Frank M.”
State ex rel. Carver v. Hull, 639 N.E.2d 1175 (Ohio 1994). “56; however, we also find that she is entitled to reinstatement due to Hull’s undisputed failure *573 to comply with R.C. 124.327. We further find that an appeal to SPBR was not available to Carver, and that the sheriffs removal is an inadequate remedy.”
Lucki v. Ohio Dep't of Rehab. & Corr., 966 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “The city and the union argued that “because the collective-bargaining agreement justified the city’s promotion of [a] bargaining-unit member * * * to the position * * *, the agreement preempted [the plaintiffs] right to the position under the reinstatement provisions under R.C.…”
State ex rel. Carver v. Hull, 1994 Ohio 449 (Ohio 1994). “56; however, we also find that she is entitled to reinstatement due to Hull's undisputed failure to comply with R.C. 124.327. We further find that an appeal to SPBR was not available to Carver, and that the sheriff's removal is an inadequate remedy.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 124.327(C) — 1 case
Lyons v. Nw. Ohio Developmental Ctr., 479 N.E.2d 272 (Ohio 1985). “” R.C. 124.327(C) alludes to the employee’s reinstatement rights “* * * within the employee’s appointing authority * * Obviously the legislature was referring to the actual agency, department or institution and not to the officer, board or commission authorized to hire or fire…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 124.327(H) — 1 case
Bashford v. City of Portsmouth, 556 N.E.2d 477 (Ohio 1990). “While that rule does provide for the creation of a layoff list and automatic re-appointment of employees to probationary permanent positions, see, also, R.C. 124.327(A), the rule neither refers to nor affects the calculation of the probationary period, and appellant does not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.