Dwight Brannon, Blair’s attorney, said they plan to pursue the case. He said they will either ask the Appellate Court for a reconsideration, or seek an “en banc hearing” where all judges of the court rather than a panel of judges hear the case, or “we will, of course, pursue it to the Supreme Court if we have to.
“We still think we have merit in the case and so did one judge, and before we had one of the other ones.”
The case has been legally pursued for the past five years with decisions favoring both sides and appeals filed by both. The original case dates back to September 2006, when Blair, who had been police chief since May 1998, filed a lawsuit against the trustees and the township after being fired. He claimed the firing was improper and that he should be reinstated with back pay. The township claimed it did not have to give a reason for his firing, since he served at their pleasure and could be fired at their desire. They eventually cited the reason as poor performance.
The township hired Blair as a police officer in 1988 and promoted him to sergeant in 1989. He was designated police constable in August 1998, which allowed him additional authority to perform some police functions in Bellbrook and Greene County outside of the township.
Blair claimed his additional roles as a constable and certified police officer entitled him to a hearing before being fired.
In the latest case, the Appeals Court panel consisted of Appellate Judges Jeffrey Froelich, who wrote the opinion, Mike Fain, and Thomas Grady, the presiding judge, who dissented.
Froelich wrote that “to the extent the assignments of error (in the appeal) raise issues concerning Blair’s alleged current status as a ‘certified police officer,’ appellant (Blair) was a former certified police officer employee with the township and is not automatically entitled to return to the classified service in the position that he held previous to his appointment as chief.”
In his dissenting opinion, Grady said he “would remand the case to the board (of trustees) for the purpose of considering whether the board should adopt a resolution terminating Blair from his designated position as a police constable.” Terminating him as police chief “did not likewise terminate his constable’s position,” Grady wrote, but by not terminating him from his constable’s position, it leaves him “in a state of limbo in that regard,” and also “presents a risk of liability for the board should Blair exercise the remaining authority the board conferred on him in some improper way.”
Blair’s most recent appeal, filed Jan. 11, 2010, was against an Aug. 13, 2009, magistrate’s decision. In that ruling, Blair was not terminated as a certified police constable, but even if he were, he would not be entitled to back pay because no compensation was attached to that position. It said the township was not required to offer him a position in the police department that he held prior to his appointment as chief of police.
Blair’s previous appeal, also against the magistrate’s Aug. 13, 2009, decision, was dismissed.
Magistrate Raymond J. Dundes found in favor of Blair in 2007, but the Second District Court of Appeals reversed that decision in 2008, stating Blair’s firing as chief was proper and that the township never terminated him from his role as constable so he could not demand a hearing on that.
About the Author