Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3319 - Ohio Revised Code | Ohio Laws
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081 (2026)

Contracts for nonteaching employees

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
October 3, 2023
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 33 - 135th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Except as otherwise provided in division (G) of this section, in all school districts wherein the provisions of Chapter 124. of the Revised Code do not apply, the following employment contract system shall control for employees whose contracts of employment are not otherwise provided by law:

(A) Newly hired regular nonteaching school employees, including regular hourly rate and per diem employees, shall enter into written contracts for their employment which shall be for a period of not more than one year. If such employees are rehired, their three subsequent contracts shall be for a period of two years each.

(B) After the termination of the third two-year contract provided in division (A) of this section, if the contract of a nonteaching employee is renewed, the employee shall be continued in employment, and the salary provided in the contract may be increased but not reduced unless such reduction is a part of a uniform plan affecting the nonteaching employees of the entire district.

(C) The contracts as provided for in this section may be terminated by a majority vote of the board of education. Except as provided in sections 3319.0810 and 3319.172 of the Revised Code, the contracts may be terminated only for violation of written rules and regulations as set forth by the board of education or for incompetency, inefficiency, dishonesty, drunkenness, immoral conduct, insubordination, discourteous treatment of the public, neglect of duty, or any other acts of misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance. In addition to the right of the board of education to terminate the contract of an employee, the board may suspend an employee for a definite period of time or demote the employee for the reasons set forth in this division. The action of the board of education terminating the contract of an employee or suspending or demoting the employee shall be served upon the employee by certified mail, regular mail with a certificate of mailing, or other form of delivery with proof of delivery, including electronic delivery with electronic proof of delivery. Within ten days following the receipt of such notice by the employee, the employee may file an appeal, in writing, with the court of common pleas of the county in which such school board is situated. After hearing the appeal the common pleas court may affirm, disaffirm, or modify the action of the school board.

A violation of division (A)(7) of section 2907.03 of the Revised Code is grounds for termination of employment of a nonteaching employee under this division.

(D) All employees who have been employed by a school district where the provisions of Chapter 124. of the Revised Code do not apply, for a period of at least three years on November 24, 1967, shall hold continuing contracts of employment pursuant to this section.

(E) Any nonteaching school employee may terminate the nonteaching school employee's contract of employment thirty days subsequent to the filing of a written notice of such termination with the treasurer of the board.

(F) A person hired exclusively for the purpose of replacing a nonteaching school employee while such employee is on leave of absence granted under section 3319.13 of the Revised Code is not a regular nonteaching school employee under this section.

(G) All nonteaching employees employed pursuant to this section and Chapter 124. of the Revised Code shall be paid for all time lost when the schools in which they are employed are closed owing to an epidemic or other public calamity. Nothing in this division shall be construed as requiring payment in excess of an employee's regular wage rate or salary for any time worked while the school in which the employee is employed is officially closed for the reasons set forth in this division.

Last updated August 16, 2023 at 12:26 PM

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 58 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1956–2025 · leading case: State ex rel. Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Employees v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 89 Ohio St. 3d 191 (Ohio 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Employees v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 89 Ohio St. 3d 191 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 22× “Appellants initially contend that the court of appeals erred in determining that the collective bargaining agreement prevailed over the statutory rights for nonteaching employees in R.C. 3319.081. Specifically, appellants contend that the layoff provision of the collective…”
Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Employees v. Twin Valley Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 451 N.E.2d 1211 (Ohio 1983). · cites it 16× “The issue presented for review is whether the provisions of R.C. 3319.081 (B) and 3319.082 preclude school districts from reducing on a nonuniform basis the number of hours worked by nonteaching personnel who are employed under hourly contracts.”
State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 105 Ohio St. 3d 476 (Ohio 2005). · cites it 6× “We remanded the cause for issuance of a writ of mandamus to compel the board to reinstate Stacy *479 to his former position as a mechanic and for the court of appeals to resolve Stacy’s claim for back pay and lost benefits.”
State ex rel. Rootstown Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Portage Cnty. Court of Common Pleas, 678 N.E.2d 1365 (Ohio 1997). · cites it 6× “Particular Claims The intervening respondents alleged claims in mandamus, injunction, and declaratory judgment in the common pleas court that are premised on R.C. 3319.081, the Ohio Constitution, and Section 4(A) of Am.”
State ex rel. Couch v. Trimble Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 896 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 14× “of the Revised Code do not apply, the following employment contract system shall control for employees whose contracts of employment are not otherwise provided by law: {¶ 16} “(A) Newly hired regular nonteaching school employees * * * shall enter into written contracts for their…”
State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 779 N.E.2d 216 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 4× “Mandamus: R.C. 3319.081 {¶ 19} It is axiomatic that “[a] wrongfully excluded public employee may obtain back pay and related benefits in a mandamus action following reinstatement or, in some cases, may obtain reinstatement and back pay and related benefits in the same mandamus…”
Robinson v. Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 759 N.E.2d 444 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 9× “On January 20, 1998, Robinson filed an administrative appeal to the Summit County Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to R.C. 3319.081. R.C. 3319.081 provides that nonteaching public school employees may be terminated only for cause.”
State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2002 Ohio 6322 (Ohio 2002). · cites it 4× “Mandamus: R.C. 3319.081 {¶19} It is axiomatic that “[a] wrongfully excluded public employee may obtain back pay and related benefits in a mandamus action following reinstatement 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO or, in some cases, may obtain reinstatement and back pay and related benefits…”
Ferdinand v. Hamilton Local Bd. of Educ., 478 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 17× “* * *” This contract neither specified a specific position nor made provision for termination by the Hamilton Local Board of Education, except pursuant to R.C. 3319.081. It is this continuing contract which is the subject of this action.”
State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 72 Ohio St. 3d 94 (Ohio 1995). · cites it 3× “* * * [Certain named relators] are employees of [the board], each of whom hold[s] continuing contracts of employment pursuant to R.C. 3319.081. “2. * * * [Other named relators] are not yet continuing contract employees pursuant to R.”
Blair v. Milford Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 575 N.E.2d 1190 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 10× “R.C. 3319.081 provides the exclusive contract system for all nonclassified nonteaching employees.”
State ex rel. Boggs v. Springfield Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 694 N.E.2d 1346 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 8× “Thus, we must initially determine whether the provisions of the agreement governed the legal rights and responsibilities of the board and the relators during the relevant events underlying this dispute, as asserted by the board, or whether to apply the law set forth in R.”
Show all 58 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081(A) — 5 cases
State ex rel. Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Employees v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 89 Ohio St. 3d 191 (Ohio 2000). “Appellants initially contend that the court of appeals erred in determining that the collective bargaining agreement prevailed over the statutory rights for nonteaching employees in R.C. 3319.081. Specifically, appellants contend that the layoff provision of the collective…”
Hall v. Lakeview Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 588 N.E.2d 785 (Ohio 1992).
Blair v. Milford Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 575 N.E.2d 1190 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “R.C. 3319.081 provides the exclusive contract system for all nonclassified nonteaching employees.”
State ex rel. Singer v. Fairland Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8368 (Ohio 2017).
State ex rel. Ohio Assn. of Pub. Sch. Emp./AFSCME, Local 4, AFL-CIO v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2000 Ohio 130 (Ohio 2000).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081(B) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Ohio Ass'n of Pub. Sch. Employees v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 89 Ohio St. 3d 191 (Ohio 2000). “Appellants initially contend that the court of appeals erred in determining that the collective bargaining agreement prevailed over the statutory rights for nonteaching employees in R.C. 3319.081. Specifically, appellants contend that the layoff provision of the collective…”
Hall v. Lakeview Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 588 N.E.2d 785 (Ohio 1992).
State ex rel. Singer v. Fairland Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn. (Slip Opinion), 2017 Ohio 8368 (Ohio 2017).
Blair v. Milford Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 575 N.E.2d 1190 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “R.C. 3319.081 provides the exclusive contract system for all nonclassified nonteaching employees.”
Matthews v. Springfield-Clark CTC Bd. of Edn., 2023 Ohio 1304 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081(C) — 23 cases
Ferdinand v. Hamilton Local Bd. of Educ., 478 N.E.2d 835 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). “* * *” This contract neither specified a specific position nor made provision for termination by the Hamilton Local Board of Education, except pursuant to R.C. 3319.081. It is this continuing contract which is the subject of this action.”
Milhoan v. E. Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 813 N.E.2d 692 (Ohio Ct. App. 2004).
Blair v. Milford Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 575 N.E.2d 1190 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “R.C. 3319.081 provides the exclusive contract system for all nonclassified nonteaching employees.”
State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 779 N.E.2d 216 (Ohio 2002). “Mandamus: R.C. 3319.081 {¶ 19} It is axiomatic that “[a] wrongfully excluded public employee may obtain back pay and related benefits in a mandamus action following reinstatement or, in some cases, may obtain reinstatement and back pay and related benefits in the same mandamus…”
State ex rel. Stacy v. Batavia Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2002 Ohio 6322 (Ohio 2002). “Mandamus: R.C. 3319.081 {¶19} It is axiomatic that “[a] wrongfully excluded public employee may obtain back pay and related benefits in a mandamus action following reinstatement 5 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO or, in some cases, may obtain reinstatement and back pay and related benefits…”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081(E) — 1 case
Rhoads v. Bd. of Educ. of Mad River Local Sch. Dist., 103 F. App'x 888 (6th Cir. 2004).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081(F) — 1 case
Blair v. Milford Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 575 N.E.2d 1190 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). “R.C. 3319.081 provides the exclusive contract system for all nonclassified nonteaching employees.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.081(G) — 1 case
State ex rel. Ohio Assn. of Pub. Sch. Emps. v. Willoughby-Eastlake City Sch. Dist., 2022 Ohio 4242 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022).
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.