# State ex rel. Bossa v. Giles

> Ohio Supreme Court · December 30, 1980 · 64 Ohio St. 2d 273

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757081

## Case

- **Full name:** The State, ex rel. Bossa v. Giles, [Admr.] of Bureau of Employment Services
- **Court:** Ohio Supreme Court
- **Decided:** December 30, 1980
- **Citations:** 64 Ohio St. 2d 273; 18 Ohio Op. 3d 461; 415 N.E.2d 256; 1980 Ohio LEXIS 877
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Brown
- **Judges:** Brown, Celebrezze, Dowd, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney
- **Cited by:** 18 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/6757081

## Opinion text

William B. Brown, J.,
concurring. The state, of course, should not be permitted to deny an employee vacation pay merely by ordaining, contrary to fact, that such employee is not “full-time.” Such a rule would be both unfair and subject to abuse.
I am not sure, however, that the statute permits us to reach an efficacious result. In order to circumvent our decision, a state agency need only hire a greater number of intermittent workers for fewer hours each. This hiring strategy will assure that no particular intermittent worker will meet our test for full-time status, viz., whether “as a routine***[such *277 intermittent worker] worked 40 hours per week and has demonstrated***an unbroken pattern of full-employment.”
If the state agencies do respond in this way, the result of our decision will simply be an increase in paperwork, a reduction in on-the-job productivity and a reduction in the size of the individual intermittent worker’s paycheck. Indeed, the only employees who will benefit from our decision may be relator and other present intermittent workers who met our above test before the state agencies had an opportunity to alter their hiring strategies.
The General Assembly should examine this issue and draft rules which will permit the state both to respond to its fluctuating labor requirements on a cost-effective basis and to protect the legitimate expectations of its employees.
Celebrezze, C. J., concurs in the foregoing concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6757081. Public record. Not legal advice.