## Facts

- Daniel Kelley worked as a vocational education teacher for the Adena Local School District from 1976 to 1986.
- Although eligible for a continuing contract (tenure) by 1984, Kelley received a two-year probationary contract after the principal cited concerns about Kelley’s compliance with instructions on extended-service work scheduling.
- Kelley engaged in union-related activity protected by Ohio’s public-sector collective bargaining law, including participation in the teachers’ association and filing a grievance.
- After the district decided not to renew Kelley’s contract, the teachers’ association filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge alleging the nonrenewal was retaliation for protected activity in violation of Ohio Rev. Code § 4117.11(A)(1) and (3).
- SERB found probable cause and issued a complaint; because the district’s answer was untimely under SERB procedure, the complaint’s factual allegations were treated as admitted.
- Relying on the admissions and limited additional evidence, SERB found the nonrenewal was motivated at least in part by antiunion animus and concluded the district committed a ULP.

## Issues

1. In a mixed-motive ULP case under Ohio Rev. Code § 4117.11, must the charging party prove but-for causation, or may SERB apply an “in-part”/mixed-motive standard with burden shifting?
2. What level of judicial deference is owed to SERB’s selection of causation and burden-allocation standards for adjudicating ULPs under Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 4117?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected the court of appeals’ requirement of strict but-for causation in mixed-motive ULP cases.
- The court approved SERB’s use of a mixed-motive, burden-shifting framework under Chapter 4117.
- The court reversed the court of appeals to the extent it required a but-for test and reinstated SERB’s ULP determination and the trial court’s affirmance in substantial part.
- The court recognized SERB’s authority to treat factual allegations as admitted when a respondent files an untimely answer under SERB procedural rules.

## Legal Principles

- Ohio Rev. Code § 4117.11(A)(1) and (3) prohibits public employers from interfering with protected employee rights and from discriminating or retaliating based on protected concerted or union activity.
- In mixed-motive ULP cases, it is sufficient for SERB to find that protected activity was a motivating factor in the adverse action; the employer may avoid liability only by proving it would have taken the same action absent the protected conduct.
- Courts should defer to SERB’s reasonable interpretation and administration of Chapter 4117, including the choice of analytic frameworks and allocation of burdens in ULP adjudications.
- SERB may enforce its procedural rules, including treating allegations as admitted when a party fails to timely respond, and may rely on those admissions as a basis for findings.

## Conclusion

The Ohio Supreme Court held that SERB may apply a mixed-motive, burden-shifting causation standard in public-sector unfair labor practice cases and that courts may not impose a strict but-for causation requirement inconsistent with SERB’s permissible administration of Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 4117.


State Emp. Rels. Bd. v. Adena Loc. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ., 66 Ohio St. 3d 485, 613 N.E.2d 605 (Ohio 1993)