COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 68148 BREDA ORTMAN : : : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellant : : AND vs. : : OPINION CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY : : : : Defendant-Appellee : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: AUGUST 10, 1995 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. CV-271216 JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: PAUL I. KOLARIC 766 Edgewood Road Richmond Heights, Ohio 44143 For Defendant-Appellee: CARLA R. DOWLING-FITZPATRICK Assistant Attorney General 30 East Broad Street - 23rd Floor State Office Tower Columbus, Ohio 43215 - 2 - O'DONNELL, J.: Appellant Breda Ortman appeals the decision of the trial court, which affirmed the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review and classified appellant's employment position at Cleveland State University as an Administrative Secretary 1. Appellant believes her employment position should be classified as an Administrative Secretary 2. In July, 1988, the Cleveland State University Department of Music hired appellant as a Secretary 2. In 1990, the university reclassified her position as an Administrative Secretary 1. On two subsequent occasions, appellant sought further reclassification, but the university denied both requests. On September 14, 1993, appellant appealed to the State Personnel Board of Review. After a hearing, the administrative law judge recommended that appellant's position be classified as an Administrative Secretary 1, and the Board adopted that recommendation. Appellant then appealed that decision to the Court of Common Pleas, which affirmed the decision of the Board on October 13, 1994. Appellant now appeals from the decision of the trial court and has assigned three errors for our review. - 3 - I, II, and III. Appellant's first, second, and third assignments of error all share a common basis in law and fact and, therefore, will be addressed together. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, COMMITTED ERROR IN UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE STATE PERSONNEL BOARD OF REVIEW ("SPBR") WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CUYAHOGA COUNTY, COMMITTED ERROR AS A MATTER OF LAW, IN UPHOLDING A DECISION BY SPBR THAT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY RELIABLE, PROBATIVE, AND SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS VIOLATED APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW (OHIO CONSTITUTION AND U.S. CONSTITUTION) IN UPHOLDING A DECISION BY THE SPBR THAT WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE NOT APPEARING IN THE RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SPBR. Appellant argues that reliable, probative, and substantial evidence does not exist in the record to support the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review and that the trial court erred in affirming that decision. Appellee believes that the decision of State Personnel Board of Review is supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence, and is in accordance with law, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming that decision. The issue for this court, then, to resolve is whether or not the trial court abused its discretion in affirming the decision of the State Personnel Board of Review. The standard of review for an appellate court on an appeal from an administrative agency pursuant to R.C. 119.12 is stated in - 4 - Lorain City Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd. (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 257. There, the Supreme Court stated at pages 260- 261: "The appellate court is to determine only if the trial court has abused its discretion. An abuse of discretion "'*** implies not merely error of judgment, but perversity of will, passion, prejudice, partiality, or moral delinquency.'" (Citations omitted) Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals must affirm the trial court's judgment. See Rohde v. Farmer (1970), 23 Ohio St.2d 82, ***." (Emphasis added) This court stated in Goggins v. Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (July 28, 1994), Cuy. App. No 65632, unreported: "While it is incumbent on the common pleas court to weigh the evidence in an administrative appeal, this is not the function of the appellate court. The appellate court is to determine only if the trial court has abused its discretion ***." Absent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court, a court of appeals may not substitute its judgment for that of an administrative agency or the trial court. See Pons v. Ohio State Med. Bd. (1993), 66 Ohio St.3d 619. Instead, the appellate court must affirm the trial court's judgment. Id. Appellant in this case seeks to have her employment position reclassified. The Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 124-7-03(C) deals with procedure in reclassification appeals and states: "The board shall compare the duties performed by the audited employee to the appropriate specifications and determine which classification most appropriately describes the duties performed by the employee." (Emphasis added) - 5 - In this case, our review of the record reveals that appellant met with Howard Meeker, the Chairman of the Department of Music, and drafted a description of her job. Thereafter, three personnel officers independently reviewed that job description and each concluded that appellant's job should remain classified as Administrative Secretary 1. On appeal to the State Personnel Board of Review, the administrative law judge conducted a full hearing where appellant testified concerning her job duties and the university presented testimony in support of its position. After a thorough review of the record in this case, we find reliable, probative, and substantial evidence exists to support the Board's decision to classify appellant's position as an Administrative Secretary 1. Because we are limited in our review to whether the trial court abused its discretion in affirming the Board's decision, and because we find the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we must follow the dictates of Rohde v. Farmer, supra, and affirm the trial court's judgment. Accordingly, the decision of the trial court is hereby affirmed. Affirmed. - 6 - It is ordered that appellee(s) recover of appellant(s) costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. JAMES D. SWEENEY, P.J., and ANN DYKE, J., CONCUR JUDGE TERRENCE O'DONNELL N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof, this document will be stamped to indicate journaliza- .