(A) If an employee in the classified or unclassified civil service becomes aware in the course of employment of a violation of state or federal statutes, rules, or regulations or the misuse of public resources, and the employee's supervisor or appointing authority has authority to correct the violation or misuse, the employee may file a written report identifying the violation or misuse with the supervisor or appointing authority. In addition to or instead of filing a written report with the supervisor or appointing authority, the employee may file a written report with the office of internal audit created under section 126.45 of the Revised Code or file a complaint with the auditor of state's fraud-reporting system under section 117.103 of the Revised Code.
If the employee reasonably believes that a violation or misuse of public resources is a criminal offense, the employee, in addition to or instead of filing a written report or complaint with the supervisor, appointing authority, the office of internal audit, or the auditor of state's fraud-reporting system, may report it to a prosecuting attorney, director of law, village solicitor, or similar chief legal officer of a municipal corporation, to a peace officer, as defined in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code, or, if the violation or misuse of public resources is within the jurisdiction of the inspector general, to the inspector general in accordance with section 121.46 of the Revised Code. In addition to that report, if the employee reasonably believes the violation or misuse is also a violation of Chapter 102., section 2921.42, or section 2921.43 of the Revised Code, the employee may report it to the appropriate ethics commission.
(B) Except as otherwise provided in division (C) of this section, no officer or employee in the classified or unclassified civil service shall take any disciplinary action against an employee in the classified or unclassified civil service for making any report or filing a complaint as authorized by division (A) of this section, including, without limitation, doing any of the following:
(1) Removing or suspending the employee from employment;
(2) Withholding from the employee salary increases or employee benefits to which the employee is otherwise entitled;
(3) Transferring or reassigning the employee;
(4) Denying the employee promotion that otherwise would have been received;
(5) Reducing the employee in pay or position.
(C) An employee in the classified or unclassified civil service shall make a reasonable effort to determine the accuracy of any information reported under division (A) of this section. The employee is subject to disciplinary action, including suspension or removal, as determined by the employee's appointing authority, for purposely, knowingly, or recklessly reporting false information under division (A) of this section.
(D) If an appointing authority takes any disciplinary or retaliatory action against a classified or unclassified employee as a result of the employee's having filed a report or complaint under division (A) of this section, the employee's sole and exclusive remedy, notwithstanding any other provision of law, is to file an appeal with the state personnel board of review within thirty days after receiving actual notice of the appointing authority's action. If the employee files such an appeal, the board shall immediately notify the employee's appointing authority and shall hear the appeal. The board may affirm or disaffirm the action of the appointing authority or may issue any other order as is appropriate. The order of the board is appealable in accordance with Chapter 119. of the Revised Code.
(E) As used in this section:
(1) "Purposely," "knowingly," and "recklessly" have the same meanings as in section 2901.22 of the Revised Code.
(2) "Appropriate ethics commission" has the same meaning as in section 102.01 of the Revised Code.
(3) "Inspector general" means the inspector general appointed under section 121.48 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997).
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 11ד52 was presumably patterned after R.C. 124.341, Ohio’s whistleblower protection statute pertaining to state employees.”
Leslie v. Ohio Dep't of Dev., 869 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2007). · cites it 22ד*64 {¶ 33} On March 29, 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the SPBR, asserting that he had been terminated in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity in contravention of R.C. 124.341, which provides: (A) If a state employee in the classified or unclassified civil…”
Harris v. Ohio Dep't of Vets. Servs., 2018-Ohio-2165, 114 N.E.3d 634. · cites it 29ד{¶ 3} On March 3, 2014, Harris appealed his removal to the State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR") and on the same date filed a letter/appeal with SPBR alleging retaliation under R.C. 124.341. On April 23, 2015, SPBR issued stays of both cases that later expired when Harris…”
Hageman v. Bryan City Sch. Dist., 2019-Ohio-223. · cites it 11דFollowing the hearing, the ALJ issued a report and recommendation concluding Hageman was terminated because she filed the report with the Williams County Sheriff, and the report was protected activity under R.C. 124.341. The ALJ recommended the termination be disaffirmed and…”
Ehrlich v. Kovack, 135 F. Supp. 3d 638 (N.D. Ohio 2015). · cites it 39ד) Because Plaintiff worked for Medina County, Defendants maintain the applicable statute for Plaintiffs claim is Ohio Rev.Code § 124.341, which provides whistle blower protections for public sector employees.”
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St. 3d 134 (1997). · cites it 11ד52 was presumably patterned after R.C. 124.341, Ohio’s whistleblower protection statute pertaining to state employees.”
Contreras v. Ferro Corp., 652 N.E.2d 940 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 2דA civil action under this division is not available to an employee as a remedy for any disciplinary or retaliatory action taken by an appointing authority against the employee as a result of the employee’s having filed a report under division (A) of section 124.341 of the…”
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 663 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 1996). “341(A) (“If the employee reasonably believes that a violation or misuse of public resources is a criminal offense, the employee, in addition to or instead of filing a written report with the supervisor or appointing authority, may report it to a prosecuting attorney, director of…”
State ex rel. Leslie v. Ohio Hous. Fin. Agency, 105 Ohio St. 3d 261 (2005). “43, Ohio’s Public Records Act, and R.C. 124.341, Ohio’s whistleblowerprotection statute for state employees.”
State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cnty. v. State Pers. Bd. of Review, 696 N.E.2d 1054 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 9ד341 provides: “(A) If a state employee in the classified or unclassified civil service becomes aware in the course of his employment of a violation of state or federal statutes, rules, or regulations or the misuse of public resources, and the employee’s supervisor or appointing…”
Desmond v. State, 2020-Ohio-181, 141 N.E.3d 1052. · cites it 2ד{¶ 6} Desmond appealed his termination to the State Personnel Board of Review (“SPBR”), alleging that he was terminated by the prosecutor’s office in retaliation for making a report under R.C. 124.341—Ohio’s whistleblower statute.”
State ex rel. Cuyahoga Cty. v. State Pers. Bd. of Review, 82 Ohio St. 3d 496 (1998). · cites it 11דCicchella appealed her termination to appellee State Personnel Board of Review (“SPBR”), claiming the whistleblower protection of R.C. 124.341. SPBR assigned the case to appellee, SPBR Administrative Law Judge Jeannette E.”
Hageman v. Bryan City Sch. Dist., 2019-Ohio-223. “Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a report and recommendation concluding Hageman was terminated because she filed the report with the Williams County Sheriff, and the report was protected activity under R.C. 124.341. The ALJ recommended the termination be disaffirmed and…”
Leslie v. Ohio Dep't of Dev., 869 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2007). “*64 {¶ 33} On March 29, 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the SPBR, asserting that he had been terminated in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity in contravention of R.C. 124.341, which provides: (A) If a state employee in the classified or unclassified civil…”
State ex rel. Zimmerman v. Tompkins, 663 N.E.2d 639 (Ohio 1996). “341(A) (“If the employee reasonably believes that a violation or misuse of public resources is a criminal offense, the employee, in addition to or instead of filing a written report with the supervisor or appointing authority, may report it to a prosecuting attorney, director of…”
Ehrlich v. Kovack, 135 F. Supp. 3d 638 (N.D. Ohio 2015). “) Because Plaintiff worked for Medina County, Defendants maintain the applicable statute for Plaintiffs claim is Ohio Rev.Code § 124.341, which provides whistle blower protections for public sector employees.”
Hageman v. Bryan City Sch. Dist., 2019-Ohio-223. “Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a report and recommendation concluding Hageman was terminated because she filed the report with the Williams County Sheriff, and the report was protected activity under R.C. 124.341. The ALJ recommended the termination be disaffirmed and…”
Leslie v. Ohio Dep't of Dev., 869 N.E.2d 687 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 2007). “*64 {¶ 33} On March 29, 2002, appellant filed a notice of appeal with the SPBR, asserting that he had been terminated in retaliation for whistle-blowing activity in contravention of R.C. 124.341, which provides: (A) If a state employee in the classified or unclassified civil…”
Hageman v. Bryan City Sch. Dist., 2019-Ohio-223. “Following the hearing, the ALJ issued a report and recommendation concluding Hageman was terminated because she filed the report with the Williams County Sheriff, and the report was protected activity under R.C. 124.341. The ALJ recommended the termination be disaffirmed and…”
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 677 N.E.2d 308 (Ohio 1997). “52 was presumably patterned after R.C. 124.341, Ohio’s whistleblower protection statute pertaining to state employees.”
Harris v. Ohio Dep't of Vets. Servs., 2018-Ohio-2165, 114 N.E.3d 634. “{¶ 3} On March 3, 2014, Harris appealed his removal to the State Personnel Board of Review ("SPBR") and on the same date filed a letter/appeal with SPBR alleging retaliation under R.C. 124.341. On April 23, 2015, SPBR issued stays of both cases that later expired when Harris…”
Kulch v. Structural Fibers, Inc., 78 Ohio St. 3d 134 (1997). “52 was presumably patterned after R.C. 124.341, Ohio’s whistleblower protection statute pertaining to state employees.”
Ehrlich v. Kovack, 135 F. Supp. 3d 638 (N.D. Ohio 2015). “) Because Plaintiff worked for Medina County, Defendants maintain the applicable statute for Plaintiffs claim is Ohio Rev.Code § 124.341, which provides whistle blower protections for public sector employees.”
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.