Attorney outlines teacher-termination process under Ohio law at Perrysburg board meeting

Julia Bauer, an attorney with Scott Scriven LLP, gave a public presentation at the Perrysburg Exempted Village Board of Education meeting on June 16, 2025, outlining how Ohio law governs termination of contract employees such as teachers and administrators.

Bauer told the board she would present a “mile-high view” of the legal process and noted the discussion was taking place in public session: “the communications that we are gonna have right now are not subject to the attorney client privilege,” she said, and added she would not address individual personnel cases.

The presentation focused on Ohio Revised Code section 3319.16, the statute commonly called the teacher-termination law. Bauer said most public-school employees work under contract rather than at-will, and that the statute requires districts to show “good and just cause” to terminate an employee. She described the test used by hearing officers and courts as a two-step inquiry: prove the facts, then prove the significance of the conduct so it merits termination. "The courts have said it is a relatively high hurdle," she said.

Bauer summarized the required procedural steps under the statute: notice and a pre-disciplinary meeting with administration; a public-board resolution stating the specific allegations; the employee’s option to request a hearing before the board or a referee appointed by the Ohio Department of Education; a recorded hearing with witnesses and a transcript; and then either the board’s acceptance of the referee’s recommendation or a second public resolution if the board disagrees. She said hearings commonly take months: "That process itself can take 9 to 12 months," and in some high-profile cases can extend to years.

She walked trustees through trends from case law and several anonymized examples, including situations where courts found good and just cause (for example, falsifying leave while simultaneously being paid for outside work the teacher did not perform) and other matters where hearing officers or courts rejected termination (including some cases involving school staff who were otherwise long-serving and well-regarded). Bauer cited challenges districts face in proving claims, including child witnesses, witness credibility, the burden of proof and the cost of hearings. "One of the most challenging things from my perspective is child witnesses," she said, adding that subpoenas and cross-examination can retraumatize students.

Bauer also explained collateral legal exposure districts can face when pursuing termination — defamation claims, due-process claims, unemployment and discrimination suits — and noted that by statute the board bears many costs of an administrative hearing, including the hearing officer and transcript. She said districts now often receive calls asking whether an employee will resign rather than proceed to a contested hearing, because resignations or separation agreements avoid lengthy local hearings and the expense and trauma of calling student witnesses.

During public comment earlier in the meeting, Nikki Clark, a Perrysburg parent, urged the board to consider fairness and transparency in termination-related matters and questioned whether continuing to use the same outside law firm for district investigations and then for board trainings could create conflicts. "When the same legal voices influence internal outcomes and later train the board on how to manage or justify those outcomes, it becomes hard to view those presentations as entirely impartial," Clark said.

The board did not take formal action on termination policy at the meeting; the presentation was informational. Superintendent Tom Hassler introduced the program and thanked Bauer for the overview. No personnel decisions were made during the presentation.

For trustees and residents, Bauer stressed that the statute’s standards are fact- and case-driven and that the local process has practical limits and costs: hearings require witnesses, transcripts and may end with reinstatement and back pay if the board does not sustain a termination recommendation. She urged boards to weigh legal, human and budgetary risks when contemplating contested terminations.

The meeting moved on after the presentation; the board scheduled further public business for the evening.