City of Lima v. State; City of Akron v. State

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court consolidated appeals involving municipal residency requirements for employees of Lima and Akron. The court held that R.C. 9.481, which generally prohibits political subdivisions from requiring employees to reside in a specific area, was enacted under Section 34, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and therefore overrides conflicting municipal charter provisions and ordinances. The court reversed the judgments of the courts of appeals.

Holdings

1. R.C. 9.481 was enacted pursuant to the General Assembly’s authority to provide for the comfort and general welfare of employees under Section 34, Article II.
2. R.C. 9.481 prevails over conflicting municipal charter provisions and ordinances because Section 34, Article II provides that no other constitutional provision may impair or limit legislation enacted under that section.

Questions Presented

1. Whether R.C. 9.481 was enacted pursuant to the General Assembly’s authority under Section 34, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.
2. Whether R.C. 9.481 overrides conflicting municipal residency requirements enacted under the Home Rule Amendment, Section 3, Article XVIII of the Ohio Constitution.
3. Whether R.C. 9.481 is constitutional as applied to municipal employee residency requirements.

Disposition

reversed