HILDEBRANDT, Presiding Judge.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant, Gene Mays, appeals the judgment of the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of the defendants-appellees, the city of Cincinnati and the Civil Service Commission of the City of Cincinnati ("the commission"), to remove him from a list of eligible employees.
{¶ 2} Mays is an electrician. In 2006, he took an examination to become an electric maintenance helper for the city. He passed the examination and was placed on an eligible list for all city departments. He then sought employment with the city's Metropolitan Sewer District ("MSD").
{¶ 3} After conducting a background check, MSD discovered that Mays had been convicted of felony drug offenses. MSD requested that Mays be removed from the eligible list based on Civil Service Commission Rule 05, Section 12, which provided that "[t]he Commission may refuse to appoint or examine an applicant, or, after an open competitive examination, refuse to certify the applicant as eligible, who * * * has been convicted of a felony."
{¶ 4} A recommendation from a commission staff member stated that, because Mays had been convicted of felonies, he "could therefore not be hired for City employment (Rule 5, Section 12)." The commission granted MSD's request to remove Mays from the eligible list.
{¶ 5} Mays then requested a hearing to challenge his removal from the eligible list. The commission conducted a hearing, during which counsel for Mays submitted evidence that he had been rehabilitated and that he was a suitable candidate for the MSD position. In a written decision, the commission stated that "[a]fter review and discussion, the Commission decision remains unchanged." {¶ 6} Mays appealed the commission's decision to the common pleas court, contending that the commission had improperly applied a blanket rule denying him eligibility based on his felony convictions. Mays argued that Civil Service Commission Rule 05, Section 12, afforded the commission the discretion to remove him from the eligible list, but that the commission had failed to exercise that discretion in applying the per se rule.
{¶ 7} In certifying the record to the trial court, the city initially failed to transmit the evidence submitted by Mays at the commission hearing. But the city did not oppose Mays's motion to supplement the record, and the evidence was ultimately included in the trial court's record.
{¶ 8} After a hearing, the trial court rejected Mays's arguments and upheld his removal from the eligible list.
{¶ 9} In two related assignments of error, Mays now contends that the commission erred in applying a per se rule denying him employment based on the felony convictions and that the trial court erred in upholding the commission's decision. We address the assignments together.
{¶ 10} A decision of a municipal civil service commission is appealable under R.C. Chapter 2506. Under R.C. 2506.04, the common pleas courts and the courts of appeals apply different standards of review for administrative appeals.
Williams v. Cincinnati, 1st Dist. No. C-080546, 2009-Ohio-1972, ¶ 5.
{¶ 11} The common pleas court must determine if the order or decision of the administrative board or agency is "unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record." An appellate court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the common pleas court, except within its limited statutory scope of review, and is to determine only if the common pleas court abused its discretion. The term "abuse of discretion" means more than an error of law or judgment; it means that the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. {¶ 12} In the case at bar, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We accept, for purposes of argument, that Civil Service Commission Rule 05, Section 12, required the commission to consider mitigating evidence for an applicant who had been convicted of a felony.
R.C. 2506.04.
Saeed v. Cincinnati, 1st Dist. No. C-030854, 2004-Ohio-3747, ¶ 21, citing Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142, 148, 2000-Ohio-493, 735 N.E.2d 433.
Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140.
{¶ 13} In this case, the record indicates that the commission did in fact consider Mays's evidence. Upon Mays's request, the commission afforded him a hearing at which he was represented by counsel. Mays was permitted to submit evidence of his rehabilitation, and the commission's written decision explicitly stated that it had reviewed and discussed the matter before upholding Mays's removal from the eligible list.
{¶ 14} Mays places special emphasis on the commission staff's recommendation indicating that his removal from the eligible list was mandated by his felony record. But the proceedings before the commission itself, in which Mays was permitted to challenge the removal, demonstrated that the commission did not apply a per se rule. Under these circumstances, the trial court's judgment upholding the commission's decision was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Accordingly, we overrule the assignments of error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed.
SUNDERMANN, J., concurs.
PAINTER, J., dissents.