YOUNGSTOWN — Sarah Brown-Clark, a former longtime Youngstown clerk of courts, lost a second lawsuit against the city in which she sought back pay she contends is owed to her.

Mahoning County Common Pleas Court Judge Maureen Sweeney dismissed the case Wednesday, writing that Brown-Clark’s “sole theory of recovery is breach of implied contract” isn’t a valid legal argument.

Sweeney wrote: “Ohio courts have consistently held that political subdivisions cannot be bound by implied contract theories absent statutory authority” and Brown-Clark’s “complaint does not set forth sufficient operative facts to establish any cognizable cause of action for which relief can be granted under Ohio law.”

City Law Director Adam Buente said: “While the city respects Sarah Brown-Clark’s decades of honorable service, the law department is pleased that the court has — for a second time — agreed that the city acted legally regarding her compensation.”

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 in an April 21 lawsuit.

In an April 30 request for dismissal, Robert Buch, a city senior assistant law director, argued Brown-Clark’s contention that an implied contract for pay raises was breached isn’t valid under state law.

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, wrote in a May 28 response to the city’s dismissal request that his client’s “complaint states valid claims under Ohio law, and she is entitled to proceed to discovery and adjudication on the merits, as such claims are particularly appropriate for resolution on a full factual record, not at the pleading stage.”

Vitullo also amended the lawsuit May 28 with Bush on June 17 again filing a motion to dismiss.

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. Brown-Clark voluntarily dismissed the case Oct. 17 before a decision was reached.

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, 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.

In the second lawsuit, Vitullo argued that because the city paid 85% of a municipal court judge’s salary to Brown-Clark for 18 years, it resulted “in an implied contract” for her final six years on the job.

Vitullo wrote the city, since 2000, “unilaterally adopted its own formula for calculating the plaintiff’s salary, deliberately ignoring the statutory requirements. Eighteen years later, for ostensibly political reasons, the city abruptly abandoned its longstanding practice and began applying the statutory formula. Having ignored the statute for nearly two decades, the city now seeks to weaponize it to deny the plaintiff compensation it itself consistently agreed to provide.”

Buch wrote in his motion to dismiss: “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 governed 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 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 is owed $28,298 over the six years. The county paid the raises to Brown-Clark during those six years.