Allen v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as Allen v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2005-Ohio-7015.]
IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO
www.cco.state.oh.us
ROBERT J. ALLEN
:
Plaintiff
:
v.
:
CASE NO. 2004-06461
Judge Joseph T. Clark
Magistrate Steven A. Larson
:
MAGISTRATE DECISION
OHIO DEPARTMENT OF
REHABILITATION AND CORRECTION
:
Defendant
: : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : :
{¶ 1} Plaintiff brought this action against defendant, the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, alleging
and breach of contract.
bifurcated
and
the
negligence
The issues of liability and damages were
case
proceeded
to
trial
on
the
issue
of
liability.
{¶ 2} At all times relevant to this action, plaintiff was an
inmate in the custody and control of defendant pursuant to R.C.
5120.16.
During his incarceration plaintiff entered a paralegal
apprenticeship program administered by the U.S. Department of Labor
(DOL).
Upon admission to the program, plaintiff signed a U.S.
Department
agreement).
of
Labor
Apprenticeship
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1.)
Agreement
(apprenticeship
Plaintiff executed a second
apprenticeship agreement in 2001 when he was transferred to Grafton
Correctional Institution (GCI).
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2.)
{¶ 3} Based upon the evidence presented in this case, the court
finds that the terms and conditions of plaintiff’s apprenticeship
were governed by the written apprenticeship agreement, defendant’s
written
policies,
and
the
relevant
DOL
regulations
governing
Case No. 2004-06461
-2-
apprenticeship programs.
MAGISTRATE DECISION
The federal regulations identify the
parties to the apprenticeship agreement as the apprentice and the
sponsor
or
employer.
identifies
Ohio
1
Institution
as
29
C.F.R.
Multi-Crafts
the
sponsor.
29.2.
J.C.A.
Other
evidence identify GCI as the sponsor.
The
and
1999
Lima
documents
agreement
Correctional
admitted
into
Based upon the evidence, the
court finds that plaintiff and defendant are the parties to the
apprenticeship agreement.
{¶ 4} The paralegal program required the completion of a total
of 6,000 hours of work in nine areas of competency as determined by
DOL. The 2001 agreement, dated November 20, 2000, documents
plaintiff’s completion of 3,000 hours.
By December 31, 2002,
plaintiff had completed 6,059 hours of apprenticeship training.
On
January 6, 2003, employees of defendant executed a “100% Completion
Request Form” verifying plaintiff’s completion of the program and
recommending the issuance of the “Certificate of Completion of
Apprenticeship” (Certificate).
(Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3.)
The form
was signed by plaintiff’s instructor, the program supervisor, the
apprenticeship administrator, and the deputy warden of special
services and was forwarded to DOL for final approval.
{¶ 5} DOL
subsequently
determined
that
plaintiff
was
not
eligible to receive his Certificate and plaintiff was instead
awarded a “50 percent certificate of apprenticeship.”
Exhibit 4.)
(Plaintiff’s
Defendant later learned that DOL had determined that
inmates were unable to complete the required hours in two of the
nine areas of competency: “prepares medical reports from doctors,”
1
Lima Correctional Institution is identified as “LCI” in the 1999 agreement.
Case No. 2004-06461
-3-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
and “researches files in firm’s library, obtains legal points &
authority.”
{¶ 6} In his complaint, plaintiff asserts claims for breach of
contract, misrepresentation, and negligence.
Plaintiff also asks
the court to issue a declaration that he had successfully completed
the apprenticeship program for an order requiring defendant to
provide him with a Certificate.
{¶ 7} Although plaintiff testified that the decision to deny him
the Certificate was made by one of defendant’s agents, the weight
of the evidence does not corroborate his allegation.
and
school
administrator,
Renee
Everett,
GCI librarian
testified
that
in
February 2003, she was informed that inmates in the paralegal
apprenticeship program could not be certified for a Certificate.
Similarly, Ann Fornal, career technical director of the Ohio
Central School System, testified that in the fall of 2003 DOL
recommended the termination of all inmate apprenticeship programs
that could not be completed due to incarceration.
Defendant
subsequently dissolved the paralegal apprenticeship program at all
participating institutions.
{¶ 8} Based upon the evidence presented and upon review of the
relevant federal regulations, the court finds that DOL alone may
determine whether a particular inmate has satisfied the program
requirements. DOL generated the apprenticeship agreement form,
created the criteria for the program, decided whether to register
or de-register a particular apprenticeship program, and issued the
Certificate.
The apprenticeship agreement expressly states that
DOL guidelines govern the apprenticeship program.
Thus, both
plaintiff and defendant were bound by those guidelines.
Case No. 2004-06461
-4-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
{¶ 9} Under the terms of the agreement, defendant was required
to provide plaintiff with paralegal training in accordance with the
apprenticeship program guidelines and to recommend plaintiff for a
Certificate upon plaintiff’s successful completion of the program.
The evidence in this case establishes that defendant fulfilled its
contractual obligations to plaintiff.
Defendant was simply not
authorized under the terms of the agreement to award plaintiff a
Certificate without DOL approval.
{¶ 10}
Additionally,
while
the
evidence
establishes
that
plaintiff performed 3,000 more hours of paralegal training than he
was required to perform in order to obtain a 50 percent Certificate
of
Apprenticeship,
the
evidence
also
establishes
that
both
plaintiff and defendant entered into the agreement and performed
the agreement under the mistaken belief that plaintiff would be
eligible
for
a
100
percent
Certificate
of
Apprenticeship.
Generally, absent fraud, duress, or compulsion, a party to a
contract who voluntarily performs under a mistaken belief as to the
legal
significance
of
his
performance
cannot
recover.
See
Consolidated Mgmt. v. Handee Marts, Inc. (1996), 109 Ohio App.3d
185.
In short, defendant is not liable to plaintiff for damages
arising from a mistake of law.
Id.
Plaintiff’s claim for breach
of contract is, therefore, without merit.
{¶ 11}
Plaintiff
next
argues
that
defendant’s
employees
fraudulently induced him to enter the program by intentionally
misleading him about his eligibility for a Certificate.
However,
plaintiff did not present any persuasive evidence to support a
finding that defendant’s employees knew, prior to 2003, that he
could not complete the entire program while incarcerated.
Although
plaintiff introduced a document wherein defendant’s staff counsel
Case No. 2004-06461
-5-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
raised questions as early as January 2001 whether the paralegal
apprenticeship program could be completed by inmates, the weight of
the evidence establishes that defendant entered into the agreement
with
plaintiff
under
the
assumption
eligible for a Certificate.
does
not
fault
any
that
plaintiff
would
be
Moreover, plaintiff testified that he
particular
awarding him a Certificate.
employee
of
defendant
for
not
For these reasons, plaintiff has
failed to prove fraud.
{¶ 12}
Plaintiff’s
negligence
claim
is
predicated
upon
defendant’s alleged failure to properly train and/or supervise the
administrative staff involved in the apprenticeship program.
More
specifically, plaintiff contends that these employees should have
known that plaintiff was not eligible for a Certificate.
However,
as stated above, the parties’ relationship with respect to the
apprenticeship program was contractual.
Consequently, the terms of
the agreement and not common law tort principles dictate the rights
and obligations of the parties.
Plaintiff’s negligence claim is,
therefore, without merit.
{¶ 13}
For the foregoing reasons, judgment is recommended in
favor of defendant.
{¶ 14}
A party may file written objections to the magistrate’s
decision within 14 days of the filing of the decision.
A party
shall not assign as error on appeal the court’s adoption of any
finding or conclusion of law contained in the magistrate’s decision
unless the party timely and specifically objects to that finding or
conclusion as required by Civ.R. 53(E)(3).
________________________________
STEVEN A. LARSON
Case No. 2004-06461
-6-
MAGISTRATE DECISION
Magistrate
Entry cc:
Robert J. Allen, #A159-045
Grafton Correctional Institution
2500 South Avon-Belden Road
Grafton, Ohio 44044
James P. Dinsmore
Assistant Attorney General
150 East Gay Street, 23rd Floor
Columbus, Ohio 43215-3130
LM/cmd
Filed November 30, 2005
To S.C. reporter December 29, 2005
Plaintiff, Pro se
Attorney for Defendant
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.