Former Belmont County DJFS Director Gianangeli’s Bid To Reinstate Appeal Denied
Trending
Former Belmont County Department of Job and Family Services director Vince Gianangeli requested reconsideration by the Seventh District Court of Appeals, after his appeal to get his old job back was dismissed for filing a day late -- but this request also was rejected, apparently for being late as well.
According to the court of appeals judgment entry, the court dismissed the appeal as untimely on June 28. An application for reconsideration must be filed within 10 days of the decision.
The entry goes on to state: "Thus, a timely application for reconsideration was due by July 8, 2022. Appellant did not file his motion for reconsideration until July 11, 2022 rendering three days late. Accordingly, in consideration of the foregoing, It is Ordered by the Court that Appellant's Motion for Reconsideration be, and the same is hereby denied."
According to the Seventh District Court of Appeals, Gianangeli's first notice of appeal was filed June 16 - one day late. He was appealing a judgment in his lawsuit against the Belmont County Board of Commissioners. Visiting Judge Linton Lewis had found in favor of the commissioners.
The matter for decision was whether Gianangeli had forfeited his right to be reinstated to a prior position because he had retired and been rehired.
In 2019, Gianangeli retired as director of the Belmont County Department of Job and Family Services and was rehired back to that post, allowing him to draw on his pension. He also took a $30,000 pay cut. Gianangeli was terminated in February 2020 by the board after he "disregarded a vote by the commissioners," according to a release.
Gianangeli had released a statement on that decision, saying that two commissioners voted to terminate an individual within the DJFS whose resignation Gianangeli already had accepted.
His suit argued that Gianangeli should have been reinstated to his prior job as fiscal business administrator. He had held positions within the department since 2004.
The commissioners argued that Gianangeli had lost his "fall back rights" when he retired.
The issue is covered by Ohio Revised Code section 329.02, which states "if a person holding a classified position in the department is appointed as director on or after that date and is later removed by the board ... the person so removed has the right to resume the position the person held in the classified service immediately prior to being appointed as director."
On May 16, Lewis dismissed the case.
"(Gianangeli) was not a classified employee when he was appointed by the board. He was a retired county employee and the position he held immediately prior to retirement was the unclassified position of director," Lewis wrote.
The suit had been active during the primary election when Gianangeli campaigned against Commissioner Jerry Echemann seeking to become the Republican candidate. Echemann won the nomination in a close race and retained his seat.
Echemann and Commissioner Josh Meyer had no comment on the matter Monday, but the commissioners' attorney, Kathleen Minahan of Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder, said Gianangeli had few options should we want to continue to suit.
"The only option left would be to Mr. Gianangeli to file an appeal to the Supreme Court of Ohio. But unlike the other courts of appeals, the Supreme Court doesn't have to take that appeal. It would be discretionary, they would decide whether or not to take it, and the court takes very few cases on a discretionary basis, so I don't think the option of further appeal is a very likely one," she said.
Gianangeli declined to comment but referred all questions to his attorney, Helen Robinson of Marshall Forman & Schlein. Robinson did not immediately respond to a phone message.
According to Robinson's original motion for appeal, she argued Gianangeli had "used reasonable and diligent efforts to comply with local rules," and Gianangeli did not know the appeal could not be filed via email, as had been done with other filings. She said when he learned of this, notice of appeal had been sent to the court by overnight mail for delivery on June 15.