# Marshall v. City of Columbus

> Ohio Supreme Court · March 26, 1980 · 61 Ohio St. 2d 353

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756797

## Case

- **Full name:** Marshall v. City of Columbus
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 26, 1980
- **Citations:** 61 Ohio St. 2d 353; 15 Ohio Op. 3d 436; 402 N.E.2d 509; 1980 Ohio LEXIS 671
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Herbert, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756797

## Opinion text

Per Curiam.
In State, ex rel. Martin, v. Columbus (1979), 58 Ohio St. 2d 261 , paragraph two of the syllabus, this court held that a civil service employee who is unlawfully discharged is entitled to his lost compensation, but “is subject to have his claim reduced by the amount he earned, or in the exercise of due diligence, could have earned in appropriate employment during the period of exclusion.” In the third paragraph of the syllabus in Martin, supra, we held that this question of mitigation of damages “is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof on that issue resides upon the employer responsible for the wrongful discharge.” Thus, the issue before us is whether appellant city of Columbus has met its burden of proof.
*355 Assuming, arguendo, that appellee did not exercise due diligence in seeking appropriate other employment, the burden is on appellant to establish what appellee could have earned in appropriate other employment. The record shows that Marshall was unlawfully discharged from the Columbus Department of Public Safety, Division of Fire, on the same day he graduated from the Columbus Fire Training Academy; that he placed third on Westerville’s firefighter civil service examination, but was not hired; that of the numerous individuals who took firefighter civil service examinations in Whitehall, Washington-Perry Township, and Grandview Heights, only 22 or 23 were ultimately hired; and that at the time Marshall could have competed for these latter positions he was suing appellant for reinstatement. Given these facts, we must agree that appellant has not met its burden of proof in establishing what appellee could have earned in appropriate employment if he had exercised due diligence.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
Celebrezze, C. J., Herbert, W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney and Locher, JJ., concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6756797. Public record. Not legal advice.