Twinsburg Township Board of Trustees v. Hill

Summit County Court of Common Pleas

Twinsburg Township Board of Trustees v. Hill

546 N.E.2d 484, 46 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 1988 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 34

CourtSummit County Court of Common Pleas

DecidedOctober 6, 1988

DocketNo. CV 87 10 3562

StatusPublished

This text of 546 N.E.2d 484 (Twinsburg Township Board of Trustees v. Hill) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Summit County Court of Common Pleas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Twinsburg Township Board of Trustees v. Hill, 546 N.E.2d 484, 46 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 1988 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 34 (Ohio Super. Ct. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Donald B. McFadden, J.

Appel-lee Dennis N. Hill was separated from his employment as a sergeant with the Twinsburg Township Police Department. In litigating matters relating to that separation, Hill and the Twins-burg Township Board of Trustees reached an agreement to settle their disputes. In the parties’ Consent Order, approved by the Honorable Frank Bayer of this court, Hill agreed to effectively terminate his employment and to forgo, among other things, seeking unemployment compensation benefits. In return for his promises, Hill received severance pay and other benefits from the township to which he was not otherwise entitled.

Upon receipt of the final severance payment from the township under the Consent Order, Hill immediately applied for unemployment compensation benefits. His application was granted. That decision was appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the granting of benefits by a ruling issued August 10, 1987. It is from this ruling that the township appeals.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether a party who is represented by counsel in a litigated proceeding and who agrees to settle the dispute by forgoing his right to unemployment compensation benefits in return for other benefits may repudiate his agreement, which was adopted by the court as its order, and receive unemployment compensation benefits.

Neither party has cited, nor has this court found, any case in which this issue has been addressed. Hill relies on R.C. 4141.32, which provides that no agreement by an employee to waive his rights to unemployment compensation benefits is valid.

The court finds, however, that the agreement in this case was not a “waiver,” but instead was a judicially approved settlement to the parties’ [10]*10dispute. This case does not involve a person who is coerced to sign a waiver of benefits as a condition of employment. This case involves court proceedings over which a judge presided and during which Hill’s interests were protected by counsel. R.C. 4141.32 does not invalidate the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court finds that the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is contrary to law, and the same is hereby reversed.

Judgment accordingly.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Donald B. McFadden, J.

Appel-lee Dennis N. Hill was separated from his employment as a sergeant with the Twinsburg Township Police Department. In litigating matters relating to that separation, Hill and the Twins-burg Township Board of Trustees reached an agreement to settle their disputes. In the parties’ Consent Order, approved by the Honorable Frank Bayer of this court, Hill agreed to effectively terminate his employment and to forgo, among other things, seeking unemployment compensation benefits. In return for his promises, Hill received severance pay and other benefits from the township to which he was not otherwise entitled.

Upon receipt of the final severance payment from the township under the Consent Order, Hill immediately applied for unemployment compensation benefits. His application was granted. That decision was appealed to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the granting of benefits by a ruling issued August 10, 1987. It is from this ruling that the township appeals.

The issue presented in this appeal is whether a party who is represented by counsel in a litigated proceeding and who agrees to settle the dispute by forgoing his right to unemployment compensation benefits in return for other benefits may repudiate his agreement, which was adopted by the court as its order, and receive unemployment compensation benefits.

Neither party has cited, nor has this court found, any case in which this issue has been addressed. Hill relies on R.C. 4141.32, which provides that no agreement by an employee to waive his rights to unemployment compensation benefits is valid.

The court finds, however, that the agreement in this case was not a “waiver,” but instead was a judicially approved settlement to the parties’ [10]*10dispute. This case does not involve a person who is coerced to sign a waiver of benefits as a condition of employment. This case involves court proceedings over which a judge presided and during which Hill’s interests were protected by counsel. R.C. 4141.32 does not invalidate the court’s order.

Accordingly, the court finds that the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is contrary to law, and the same is hereby reversed.

Judgment accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

546 N.E.2d 484, 46 Ohio Misc. 2d 9, 1988 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/twinsburg-township-board-of-trustees-v-hill-ohctcomplsummit-1988.