|
Central State Univ. v. Amer. Assn. Of Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Central State Univ. v. Amer. Assn. Of Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999)
Central State University v. American Association of University Professors No. 98-1071 Decided March 22, 1999 526 U.S. 124
CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Syllabus
Pursuant to Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 3345.45, petitioner university adopted standards for its professors’ instructional workloads and notified respondent, the certified collective bargaining agent for the professors, that it would not bargain over the workload issue. Respondent then filed a complaint in state court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that § 3345.45 created a class of public employees not entitled to bargain regarding their workload in violation of the Equal Protection Clauses of the Ohio and United States Constitutions. The Ohio Supreme Court held that the collective bargaining exemption bore no rational relationship to the State’s interest in correcting the imbalance between research and teaching at its public universities, and concluded that the State had not shown any rational basis for singling out university professors as the only public employees precluded from bargaining over their workload.
Held: the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding cannot be reconciled with the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause. This court has repeatedly held that, where a classification involves neither fundamental rights nor suspect proceedings, it cannot run afoul of the Clause if there is a rational relationship between disparity of treatment and some legitimate governmental purpose. E.g., Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319-321. The legislative classification here passes that test. Imposing a workload policy not subject to collective bargaining was an entirely rational step to accomplish the statute’s objective of increasing the time faculty spent in the classroom. The fact that the record before the Ohio courts did not show that collective bargaining had led to the decline in faculty classroom time does not detract from the legislative decision’s rationality.
Certiorari granted; 83 Ohio St.3d 229, 699 N.E.2d 463, reversed and remanded.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Central State Univ. v. Amer. Assn. Of Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999) in 526 U.S. 124 526 U.S. 125. Original Sources, accessed November 22, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6P2IC42WTMER7DH.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Central State Univ. v. Amer. Assn. Of Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999), in 526 U.S. 124, page 526 U.S. 125. Original Sources. 22 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6P2IC42WTMER7DH.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Central State Univ. v. Amer. Assn. Of Univ. Professors, 526 U.S. 124 (1999). cited in 1999, 526 U.S. 124, pp.526 U.S. 125. Original Sources, retrieved 22 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=6P2IC42WTMER7DH.
|