PERRYSBURG – The police collective bargaining representative is taking the city to court over the
validity of residency requirements.
The Ohio Patrolman’s Benevolent Association, which includes the sergeants’ and dispatchers’ bargaining
units, filed civil suit Wednesday against the city in Wood County Court of Common Pleas. The OPBA, along
with Sgt. Jack Otte and Communications Officer Mary Karafa, are seeking declaratory judgment that
provisions in their union contracts that restrict residency to certain boundaries within and adjacent to
the city are invalid and inoperative as a matter of law.
Mayor Nelson Evans and members of the city council are named as defendants in the suit.
The complaint argues that the allowed residency districts described in the bargaining agreements are more
restrictive than those allowed per the Ohio Revised Code. Section 2.481 of the ORC allows municipalities
to require employees with emergency-sensitive positions "to reside either in the county where the
political subdivision is located or in any adjacent county in this state."
The sergeants’ contract, as submitted to the court, permits residence within: the City of Perrysburg,
Perrysburg Township, Middleton Township, a portion of Webster Township; the City of Rossford, the
Village of Haskins, and the City of Maumee. The requirements do not apply to hires before 1997, unless
employees under that clause moved from their
residences after 1998.
The contract submitted to the court that pertains to communications officers requires residency within
Wood County or Lucas County.
"They’re limited to living within those districts and there can be a lot of different reasons as to
why people might want to live elsewhere," said Michelle Sullivan, an attorney with Allotta, Farley
& Widman Co., who submitted the complaint.
A copy of the complaint was obtained from the firm Thursday.
The suit comes on the heels of an Ohio Supreme Court ruling on June 10 which upheld a 2006 state law that
bars a political subdivision of the state from requiring its employees, as a condition of employment, to
reside within that political subdivision.
However, Personnel Committee Chair Maria Ermie said the city maintains that the court decision was not
based on negotiated contracts.
"The only thing that I can reiterate is that that was a negotiated contact which was separate from
the ruling that was recently handed down from the court," she said. "And we believe that the
negotiated contract is legal and binding."
She said it remains important for the safety of the community for emergency personnel to be able to
respond quickly.
Ermie said the filing comes at no surprise to the city. According to the complaint, both parties met in
early July in an unsuccessful attempt to resolve the conflict. Minutes from the July 28 Personnel
Committee meeting state that sergeants and dispatchers were looking for a judge to declare the residency
sections invalid. The minutes further state that the residency provision was bargained for in exchange
for additional pay at the time residency was introduced years ago.
The complaint additionally cites a section of the ORC that states provisions of law "pertaining to
… residency requirements … prevail over conflicting provisions of agreements between employee
organizations and public employers." It also points to sections in the bargaining agreements which
state that provisions in violation of law shall be rendered inoperative.
The mayor was out of town and unavailable to comment on the suit as of publishing.
Matthew Beredo, city law director, said the city will respond to the suit when it is officially served.
"Until it’s been served on us, litigation has not officially commenced," he said.
Kelly Louderback, human resource manager, said the patrolmen’s unit negotiated for a more inclusive
residency clause that includes Wood County and any adjacent county in its current contract.
The sergeants’ and dispatchers’ contracts were signed in June.
Sullivan said the city will have 28 days to respond, at which time the court would set a scheduling
conference. She said her clients disagree with the city’s position that the court decision does not
apply to the contracts.
"We feel strongly that we are legally bound by the contracts that have been negotiated," Ermie
said. "And residency is part of that."
