Except as provided in section 737.052 of the Revised Code, the chief of police and the chief of the fire department have the exclusive right to suspend any of the deputies, officers, or employees in their respective departments and under their management and control, for incompetence, gross neglect of duty, gross immorality, habitual drunkenness, failure to obey orders given them by the proper authority, or for any other reasonable and just cause.
If an employee is suspended under this section, the chief of police or the chief of the fire department, as the case may be, shall forthwith certify that fact in writing, together with the cause for the suspension, to the director of public safety, who, within five days from the receipt of that certification, shall proceed to inquire into the cause of the suspension and render judgment on it. If the charge is sustained, the judgment may be for the person's suspension, reduction in rank, or dismissal from the department. The judgment shall be final except as otherwise provided by law.
The director, in any investigation of charges against a member of the police or fire department, shall have the same powers to administer oaths and to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of books and papers that are conferred upon the mayor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1945–2021 · leading case: Peters v. City of Jackson, 653 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1995).
Peters v. City of Jackson, 653 N.E.2d 1238 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1995). · cites it 25ד” Second Assignment of Error: “The court of common pleas erred by failing to determine, as a matter of law, that the appellees violated R.C. 737.12 in terminating the appellant’s employment.”
State v. Mole (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-5124, 74 N.E.3d 368. · cites it 2ד5 See R.C. 737.12 (allowing suspension or dismissal of police officers for any reasonable cause, including “gross immorality”); Jones v.”
Pesek v. City of Brunswick, 794 F. Supp. 768 (N.D. Ohio 1992). · cites it 8דThe Ohio Revised Code establishes that the chief of police and the chief of the fire department for municipalities, respectively, possess the “exclusive right” to suspend employees under their control, see O.R.C. § 737.12. Thus, seemingly, Combs and Crane have final…”
City of Akron v. Williams, 673 N.E.2d 221 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1996). · cites it 19דThe city argues that the common pleas court incorrectly reversed the commission’s decision on the ground that the city had violated R.C. 737.12, because that statute was superseded by the Akron City Charter.”
Wright v. City of Canton, Ohio, 138 F. Supp. 2d 955 (N.D. Ohio 2001). “Under Ohio Revised Code § 737.12, the chief of police is the final policymaker with regard to investigations that do not result in disciplinary action.”
Brice v. City of Oregon, 675 N.E.2d 545 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1996). · cites it 13דThe trial court erred when it held that appellee be reinstated as a firefighter since no ‘removal’ pursuant to O.R.C. 737.12 took place. *9 “II. The trial court erred when it held that the city of Oregon wrongfully required appellee to resign his position as firefighter.”
Spain v. City of Mansfield, 915 F. Supp. 919 (N.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 2דOn March 23, 1992, a hearing was held in accordance with Section 737.12 of the Ohio Revised Code by the Service Safety Director ■with respect to what disciplinary action, if any, would be taken.”
Beyer v. Donaldson, 384 N.E.2d 712 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1978). · cites it 2דSection 737.12 provides inter alia that: “The chief of police and the chief of the fire department shall have exclusive right to suspend any of the deputies, officers, or employees in their respective departments and under their management and control, for incompetence, gross…”
Williams v. City of Akron, 753 N.E.2d 249 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 2001). “Williams appealed to the Akron Civil Service Commission, which held a hearing on December 15,1994. The commission also affirmed the dismissal, and Williams appealed to the court of common pleas.”
Martin v. City of Bellefontaine, 412 N.E.2d 421 (Ohio Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 2דFirst Assignment of Error: “The Bellefontaine Civil Ser *172 vice Commission erred in affirming the suspension since it was not in compliance with either Section 737.12 or 124.34 of the Ohio Revised Code.”
Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n v. Vill. of Lordstown, 691 N.E.2d 1069 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1997). “In both cases, the employers expressly reserved the right to suspend and discharge employees for just cause. However, there are two critical differences.”
Zimmerman v. City of Cleveland, 130 N.E.2d 401 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 1955). · cites it 4ד'” This is also in accord with the statutes of the state, as defined by the provisions of Section 737.12, Revised Code (Sections 4379 and 4380, General Code), the applicable part thereof being as follows: “The chief of police * * * shall have exclusive right to suspend * * *…”
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.