Go Syfert

Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171 (2026)

Administrative personnel suspension policy

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Effective:

June 30, 2000

Latest Legislation:

Senate Bill 77 - 123rd General Assembly

PDF:

Download Authenticated PDF

(A) Notwithstanding section 3319.17 of the Revised Code, the board of education of a city, local, exempted village, or joint vocational school district or the governing board of an educational service center may adopt an administrative personnel suspension policy governing the suspension of any contract of employment entered into by a board under section 3319.02 of the Revised Code. If a board adopts a policy under this section, no contract entered into by a board under section 3319.02 of the Revised Code may be suspended except pursuant to the policy. If a board does not adopt such a policy, no such contract may be suspended by a board except pursuant to section 3319.17 of the Revised Code.

(B) The administrative personnel suspension policy shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:

(1) One or more reasons that a board may consider for suspending any contract of employment entered into under section 3319.02 of the Revised Code. A reason for such suspension may include the financial conditions of the school district or educational service center.

(2) Procedures for determining the order of suspension of contracts within the employment service areas affected;

(3) Provisions requiring a right of restoration for employees whose contracts of employment are suspended under the policy if and when any positions become vacant or are created for which any of them are or become qualified.

(C) The policy procedures and provisions adopted under divisions (B)(2) and (3) of this section shall be developed by the board of a district or service center with input from the superintendent and all assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals, and other administrators employed by that board under section 3319.02 of the Revised Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2008–2025 · leading case: Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ohio 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ohio 2014). · cites it 25× “Defendant then asserts Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violations of Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.171 because he fails to allege he was employed as an “administrator” when Defendant’s administrative personnel suspension policy was developed and, therefore,'was not entitled to…”

State ex rel. Couch v. Trimble Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 896 N.E.2d 690 (Ohio 2008). · cites it 4× “Waiver {¶ 30} Respondents claim for the first time in their brief that Couch was properly terminated pursuant to R.C. 3319.171 because she was an “other administrator” under R.”

State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025). · cites it 41× “02(D)(3)—R.C. 3319.171—School board’s suspension of administrators’ contracts under local administrative-personnel-suspension policy was valid because the local policy contained all the required elements set forth in R.”

State ex rel. Bennett v. Dayton Pub. Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2021 Ohio 3119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Another provision, R.C. 3319.171, authorizes a school board to adopt its own policies for the suspension of administrator contracts as part of a RIF.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171(3)(B) — 1 case

Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ohio 2014). “Defendant then asserts Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violations of Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.171 because he fails to allege he was employed as an “administrator” when Defendant’s administrative personnel suspension policy was developed and, therefore,'was not entitled to…”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171(A) — 1 case

State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025). “02(D)(3)—R.C. 3319.171—School board’s suspension of administrators’ contracts under local administrative-personnel-suspension policy was valid because the local policy contained all the required elements set forth in R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171(B) — 1 case

State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025). “02(D)(3)—R.C. 3319.171—School board’s suspension of administrators’ contracts under local administrative-personnel-suspension policy was valid because the local policy contained all the required elements set forth in R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171(B)(1) — 1 case

State ex rel. Bennett v. Dayton Pub. Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2021 Ohio 3119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Another provision, R.C. 3319.171, authorizes a school board to adopt its own policies for the suspension of administrator contracts as part of a RIF.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171(B)(2) — 1 case

State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025). “02(D)(3)—R.C. 3319.171—School board’s suspension of administrators’ contracts under local administrative-personnel-suspension policy was valid because the local policy contained all the required elements set forth in R.”

— Ohio Rev. Code § 3319.171(B)(3) — 3 cases

Shoemake v. Mansfield City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 61 F. Supp. 3d 704 (N.D. Ohio 2014). “Defendant then asserts Plaintiff fails to state a claim for violations of Ohio Rev.Code § 3319.171 because he fails to allege he was employed as an “administrator” when Defendant’s administrative personnel suspension policy was developed and, therefore,'was not entitled to…”

State ex rel. Bennett v. Dayton Pub. Schs. Bd. of Edn., 2021 Ohio 3119 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). “Another provision, R.C. 3319.171, authorizes a school board to adopt its own policies for the suspension of administrator contracts as part of a RIF.”

State ex rel. Ruble v. Switzerland of Ohio Local Sch. Dist. Bd. of Edn., 2025 Ohio 1510 (Ohio 2025). “02(D)(3)—R.C. 3319.171—School board’s suspension of administrators’ contracts under local administrative-personnel-suspension policy was valid because the local policy contained all the required elements set forth in R.”

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.