YOUNGSTOWN — The city asked a judge to dismiss the second lawsuit filed by Sarah Brown-Clark, a former clerk of courts seeking back pay, contending her argument that an implied contract was breached is not valid under state law.

Robert Buch, a city senior assistant law director, wrote in a Thursday motion to dismiss that Brown-Clark’s “complaint relies entirely on a legal theory, which Ohio courts, including this court, have consistently held is unenforceable against political subdivisions.”

Buch wrote: “Based on the face of plaintiff’s complaint, her sole theory of recovery is breach of an implied contract” with her alleging “without evidence or citation to statute/ordinance that an implied contract was formed with the city.”

James Vitullo, Brown-Clark’s attorney, filed the lawsuit April 21 in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court contending the city breached an implied contract over back pay. Judge Maureen Sweeney was assigned to oversee the case.

Vitullo wrote in his court filing that his client is seeking a judgment in excess of $25,000, plus interest and costs, and an order requiring the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System to recalculate her benefits.

Brown-Clark’s first case, filed Dec. 28, 2023, was a petition for a writ of mandamus. It was dismissed March 11, 2025, by Judge John M. Durkin of common pleas court and then appealed to the 7th District Court of Appeals. She voluntarily dismissed the case Oct. 17 before a decision was reached.

Brown-Clark, clerk of courts for 24 years until her retirement at the end of 2023, contended the city owes her $28,298 in back pay for the last six years of her term. The city disputed that.

Buch wrote in his Thursday filing: “Public employee compensation is governed by legislation authority, not theories of implied contract which may arise from the doctrines of promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance. A public officer’s compensation is government by statute/ordinance and no contractual right exists beyond what the legislative authority provides. Plaintiff makes no reference to any legislative authority in her complaint and relies solely on the theory of implied contract.”

Council voted 4-3 on Dec. 20, 2023, against giving Brown-Clark a $7,181 raise for 2023. She filed the lawsuit eight days later for raises not given by the city over the last six years of her term.

The legal dispute in the first case centered on interpretation of Ohio Revised Code Section 1901.31 regarding clerks of courts and specifically a provision exempting certain cities and counties with populations under 100,000 residents, including Youngstown, from having an appointed clerk of courts and requiring that person be elected.

Under that requirement, the clerk of court would get 85% of the municipal court judges’ salary.

In a March 7, 2024, motion to dismiss that was converted by the court to a motion for summary judgment, city Law Director Adam Buente wrote the statute states if a city’s population is under 100,000 and its court’s revenue is less than its expenditures “the clerk of court of a municipal court shall receive the annual compensation that the legislative authority prescribes.”

There are exemptions included in the law, but not for Youngstown, Durkin ruled.

Durkin wrote: “The General Assembly had the chance to carve out the same exemption for the Youngstown Municipal Court,” but “expressly chose not to do so. Thus, Youngstown’s clerk of court is not exempted.”

Durkin also agreed with the city that the exemption for Youngstown to have an elected clerk of courts “has nothing to do with the setting of Brown-Clark’s compensation.”

The city pays 60% of the Youngstown clerk of courts’ salary with Mahoning County paying the rest.

The rejected legislation by council would have increased the city’s portion of Brown-Clark’s annual salary from $67,389 to $74,570 in 2024. Overall, her annual salary would have gone from $117,103 to $124,284 that year.

In the first lawsuit, Brown-Clark claimed the city and Finance Director Kyle Miasek improperly froze her salary at the 2018 rate of $67,389. With salary increases under state law, Brown-Clark stated she was owed $28,298 over the six years. The county paid the raises to Brown-Clark during those six years.

In the new lawsuit, Vitullo argues that because Brown-Clark was paid the 85% for 18 years, it resulted “in an implied contract” for her final six years on the job.

He wrote the city “breached the implied contract to pay the defendant 85% of the judge’s salaries.”

Buch responded in his Thursday motion to dismiss that “a public officer’s compensation is government by statute or ordinance and no contractual right exists beyond what the law provides.”

He added: “Ohio courts have consistently refused to impose implied contract liability upon a municipality where doing so would circumvent statutory requirements. To allow a party to recover against a municipality under the theory of implied contract would permit the evasion of the statutes.”