The Ohio Court of Appeals has ruled against Brandon Montgomery, the Fire Chief of the Village of Mingo Junction, in a case concerning his termination and reinstatement. The court denied Montgomery's request for a writ of mandamus, which would have compelled Mayor Judy Ruckman to follow specific statutory procedures for his removal and to reinstate him with back pay. This decision affects Montgomery and the local fire department, highlighting the complexities of employment law and administrative procedures in government positions.
The case, officially titled State ex rel. Montgomery v. Ruckman, was filed on July 8, 2026, under docket number 25 JE 0024. Montgomery sought legal remedy after being placed on administrative leave and subsequently terminated by Ruckman without what he claimed was the proper legal process. The court's ruling emphasizes the importance of following established procedures in public employment matters.
Montgomery and Ruckman are central figures in this dispute. Montgomery, who has served as Fire Chief, was placed on paid administrative leave in June 2024 due to allegations of sexual misconduct. An investigation led to a felony indictment against him in April 2025. Ruckman, as the Mayor, initiated termination proceedings against Montgomery, alleging inappropriate behavior and failure to adhere to professional standards.
The conflict escalated when Montgomery filed a complaint in May 2025, claiming that Ruckman did not follow the required statutory removal procedures outlined in Ohio Revised Code (R.C.) sections 733.35 through 733.39. These sections dictate how a fire chief can be removed from office, including the need for a hearing and a decision by the Village Council. Montgomery sought a writ of mandamus to compel Ruckman to comply with these procedures, reinstate him on paid leave, and provide back pay.
The case progressed through various legal motions, including cross-motions for summary judgment from both parties. Montgomery argued that Ruckman failed to respond to his grievance, which he believed resulted in a default ruling in his favor. However, Ruckman's legal team contended that the Village Council had already addressed the allegations against Montgomery during a special meeting held on September 15, 2025, where they voted to reinstate him and provide back wages.
In its ruling, the Ohio Court of Appeals found that Montgomery's statutory claim was moot. The court stated, "The competent evidence establishes that the R.C. 733.35 through 733.39 procedure has been performed and the relief sought through that procedure has been granted; no unperformed duty remains to compel, and the claim is moot." The court emphasized that since the Village Council had already conducted the necessary hearing and made a determination, there was no further action required from Ruckman.
Judges Carol Ann Robb, Cheryl L. Waite, and Katelyn Dickey presided over the case. They ruled that Montgomery had not met the burden of proof required to establish a clear legal right to the relief he sought. The court also noted that Montgomery's attempt to introduce a new argument based on the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) was not properly pleaded in his original complaint and thus could not be considered in the ruling.
This decision has significant implications for Montgomery and the governance of the Village of Mingo Junction. It reinforces the importance of following statutory procedures in employment matters, particularly in public service roles. The ruling also highlights the challenges faced by public employees when navigating legal disputes related to their employment.
Moving forward, Montgomery's options appear limited. While he could potentially seek further legal action, the court's ruling effectively closes the door on his current claims regarding the statutory removal procedures. The court did not address whether Montgomery could pursue a separate claim to enforce the Village Council's September 15 resolution or to address any obligations arising from subsequent events.
In summary, the Ohio Court of Appeals has denied Montgomery's request for a writ of mandamus, affirming that the statutory procedures for his removal had been properly followed and that his claims were moot. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in employment law and the necessity for public officials to adhere to established legal processes.