The opinion
[Cite as Dupuis v. Am. Fedn. of State, Cty., & Mun. Emps., Local 2174-Toledo Pub. School Dist., 2026-Ohio-
2116.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
Cindy DuPuis, et al. Court of Appeals No. {48}L-25-00292
Appellants Trial Court No. CI0202502488
v.
American Federation of State, DECISION AND JUDGMENT
County and Municipal Employees,
Local 2174-Toledo Public School Decided: June 5, 2026
District, et al.
Appellees
*****
Jay R. Carson, David C. Tyron, and Alex M. Certo,
for appellant, Tiffany Binder
Kimm A. Massengill-Bernardin and Michelle R. Evans,
for appellees, Ohio Council 8, AFSCME, AFL-CIO and
Local 2174
Ohio Attorney General, Dave Yost, and Victor J. Niro,
Assistant Attorney General, for appellee, State Relations Board.
ZMUDA, J.
{¶ 1} We sua sponte place this matter on the accelerated calendar pursuant to
App.R. 11.1(A), and this judgment entry is not an opinion of the court. See
S.Ct.R.Rep.Op.3.1; App.R. 11.1(E); 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 11.1. Having reviewed the
record, we find appellant’s assignments of error not well-taken.
{¶ 2} On November 4, 2025, the trial court determined that it lacked subject
matter jurisdiction over appellant Tiffany Binder’s claims seeking injunctive relief,
declaratory judgment, and damages.1 Appellant’s claims relate to her allegation that
appellees, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2174
and Ohio Council 8, improperly deducted dues from her paychecks following her
resignation from the union. The trial court’s judgment entry granted appellees’ motion to
dismiss, finding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over appellant’s claims as the
conduct alleged constituted an unfair labor practices and was subject to the State
Employment Relation Board’s exclusive jurisdiction, as described in R.C. Chapter 4117.2
Appellant timely appealed, assigning two errors for our review.
{¶ 3} We recently addressed these same assigned errors and found them not well-
taken. Vanderveer v. Ohio Association of Public School Employees, 2026-Ohio-964 (6th
Dist.). Because the issues raised here are identical, that decision is controlling. For these
reasons, we find appellant’s first and second assignments of error not well-taken in
accordance with our decision in Vanderveer. As a result, we affirm the November 4,
2025 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
1
Appellant Cindy DuPuis also appealed the trial court’s judgment. On February 24,
2026, we granted appellant her motion to voluntarily dismiss her appeal.
2
We note that appellant named the Board as a defendant to her declaratory judgment
claim. The trial court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss on October 20, 2025,
finding that it was not a proper party because there was no case or controversy between it
and appellant. Appellant did not assign error to the trial court’s dismissal of the Board
and that issue is not before us.
2.
{¶ 4} Appellant is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
____________________________
JUDGE
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.
3.