COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 69565 RICHARD FARAGHER : : Plaintiff-appellant : : JOURNAL ENTRY -vs- : AND : OPINION CITY OF CLEVELAND, ET AL. : : Defendants-appellees : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: JUNE 6, 1996 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-283564 JUDGMENT: Affirmed. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: For Defendants-Appellees: KEVIN P. PRENDERGAST, ESQ. SHARON SOBOL JORDAN, ESQ. 27999 Clemens Road, Suite One City of Cleveland Law Director Westlake, Ohio 44145 JOSEPH J. JERSE, ESQ. Assistant Law Director Room 106 - City Hall 601 Lakeside Avenue Cleveland, Ohio 44114 - 2 - DYKE, J.: Appellant appeals from the dismissal of his complaint against the City of Cleveland ("the City") and three individual members of the Cleveland Civil Service Commission ("Commission"). His complaint alleged three counts of constitutional substantive and procedural due process violations and a fourth count alleging failure to pay benefits. Appellant was dismissed after thirty-four years of employment with the City. Appellant was a law enforcement officer for most of those years. At the time of his termination appellant was a security manager for the City. His position was eliminated in September 1994. On October 31, 1994 the Commission held a hearing to determine the propriety of appellant's termination. The Commission voted to uphold the termination and appellant appealed this decision to the Court of Common Pleas, case number CV-281537. A motion to dismiss this appeal was filed by the City, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the appeal was filed after the thirty days allowed for a timely appeal. On January 19, 1995, the same day appellant filed his brief in opposition to the City's motion to dismiss the appeal, appellant also filed his complaint in the present case. The trial court granted the City's motion to dismiss appellant's initial appeal. That decision was appealed to this Court, appeal number 69564, and remains pending as a companion case to the present appeal. - 3 - The City responded to the complaint filed on January 19th with another motion to dismiss. The City asserted both lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The City argued in its motion to dismiss that appellant had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, that the claims were barred by collateral estoppel and by the prohibition against splitting claims and that the individual Commission members were entitled to immunity. As to appellant's claim for unpaid benefits, the City requested that appellant specify what compensation or benefits had not been paid. The trial court granted appellees' motion to dismiss without further explanation. Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal from the court's dismissal of his complaint. Upon appellant's motion for reconsideration, this Court allowed the appeal. Appellant asserts one assignment of error. I THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN GRANTING THE MOTION TO DISMISS FILED BY THE DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES. Appellant argues that his civil rights claims were separate and distinct from the issues in the appeal filed from the Commission's decision to uphold his termination. He further argues that the claims against the individual Commission members were not subject to dismissal on immunity grounds. Appellant's arguments are not well taken. - 4 - Appellant's complaint asserts claims which could have been raised in an appeal from the Commission's decision to uphold his termination. R.C. 124.34 allows civil service employees to appeal any removal to the civil service commission. Appellant appealed to the Commission, which held a hearing, as required, on October 31, 1994. R.C. 124.34 further allows an appeal to be taken from the decision of the civil service commission with the Court of Common Pleas within thirty days. Appellant filed an appeal with the Court of Common Pleas from the Commission's decision to uphold his termination. The Court of Common Pleas dismissed the appeal and appellant's appeal from that dismissal is pending in this Court. Appellant's claims of due process violations and failure to pay compensation were issues properly before the Court of Common Pleas on appeal from the Commission's ruling. This Court has held that a civil service employee may not pursue relief through other judicial avenues when an adequate remedy lies in the process of appeals from the Commission. Appeal to city civil service commission of layoffs by school board was "adequate remedy" that precluded civil service employees from seeking mandamus relief, even if time for appeal had expired, and even if mandamus would have been faster and more convenient. R.C. [sections] 124.321, 124.328. State ex rel. Connole v. Cleveland Bd. of Edn. (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 43, paragraph one of the syllabus. The Ohio Supreme Court has also held that civil service employees must exhaust appellate remedies before attempting to collaterally attack the Commission's decision. - 5 - A denial by the respondent civil service commission of jurisdiction of this controversy represented a final appealable order. When the commission refused relator's request for a hearing, relator should have appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. Having failed to do so, and, thereby having failed to pursue his appellate remedies in the ordinary course of law, he cannot now collaterally attack this jurisdictional determination. See State, ex rel. Stough, v. Bd. of Edn. (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 47, and State, ex rel. Bingham, v. Riley (1966), 6 Ohio St. 2d 263. State, ex rel. Henderson, v. Civil Service Comm. (1980), 63 Ohio St.2d 39, 41. The claims against individual Commission members also could have been brought within the initial appeal from the Commission's ruling. Appellant claimed that the Commission members intentionally, wilfully, wantonly and maliciously deprived him of a fair hearing. Without exhausting his administrative appeals, appellant can not now bring a civil action attacking the substance and procedure of the Commission hearing. Finally, as to the claim that appellant was owed certain compensation or separation benefits, this too was a subject which was properly before the Commission at the hearing. The termination which was the subject of the hearing, included not only appellant's release from employment but also any benefits package which would be paid upon termination. If appellant felt that he received less than all he was entitled to, he could have presented the issue to the Commission and, after receiving an adverse decision, raised the matter on appeal to the Court of Common Pleas. - 6 - Appellant's assignment of error is overruled. The trial court's dismissal of appellant's complaint is affirmed. - 7 - It is ordered that appellees recover of appellant their 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 Court of Common Pleas 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 O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR ANN DYKE JUDGE 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 journalization, .